Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 13, 2016 CommissionMEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside  COMMISSIONERS  Chair – Scott Matas Vice Chair – John F. Tavaglione Second Vice Chair – Dana Reed Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Chuck Washington, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning Lloyd White / Mike Lara, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Joyce McIntire, City of Calimesa Dawn Haggerty / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Shelley Kaplan, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / To Be Appointed, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Paul Raver, City of Hemet Dana Reed / Douglas Hanson, City of Indian Wells Michael Wilson / Glenn Miller, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley Robert Radi / To Be Appointed, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann / John Denver, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez / Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Geoffrey Kors, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / To Be Appointed, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Mark Bartel, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Michael McCracken, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar John Bulinski, Director, Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. COMM-COMM-00056 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: To: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:19 AM Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: April Commission Agenda -04.13.2016 Importance: High Good morning Commissioners: The April Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2016@ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/april-13-2016.original.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, 'Tara S. (f3yer{y Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Tara Byerly Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:23 AM Tara Byerly RCTC: April Commission Agenda -04.13.2016 High Good morning Commission Alternates: The April Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2016@ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/april-13-2016.original.pdf Thank you. Respectfully, rrara s. <Byer[y Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 13, 2016 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, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CHOOSES UC RIVERSIDE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation from Kim A. Wilcox, Chancellor, UC Riverside. 5. 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 April 13, 2016 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. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 28-29 COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND MARCH 9, 2016 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. 8A. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-007, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy”; and 2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy. 8B. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE WEST PORPHYRY OVERHEAD Page 15 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve reallocation adjustments to the construction and maintenance (C&M) agreements with BNSF Railway (BNSF) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project): a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00 East Porphyry Overhead decrease in the amount of $108,460 for a total amount not to exceed $353,861; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $286,079 for a total amount not to exceed $721,163; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $85,177 for a total amount not to exceed $780,977; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2016 Page 3 2) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-114-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with BNSF for extended flagging services for an additional amount of $1 million, increase in the amount of $479,716 from the above reallocation adjustments, and use of $455,894 of contingency, for a total amount not to exceed $6,921,234, resulting in a remaining contingency of $276,240 and total C&M agreements amount not to exceed $9,053,475; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8C. AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE OF 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY Page 25 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-72-074-00 with the city of Jurupa Valley for advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funds to advance up to $1,167,000, utilizing funding from the 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) program; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf the Commission. 8D. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF BLYTHE Page 52 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the adjustment to the city of Blythe’s (Blythe) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount to $170,000. 8E. APPROVAL OF 71/91 INTERCHANGE UTILITY AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING UTILITY AGREEMENT Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following agreements for final engineering and construction for utility relocations for the 71/91 interchange project in the amount of $816,435, plus a contingency of $204,109, for a total amount not to exceed $1,020,544: Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2016 Page 4 a) Agreement No. 16-31-068-00 with AT&T in an amount not to exceed $18,162; b) Agreement No. 16-31-069-00 with AT&T (Prado) in an amount not to exceed $21,503; c) Agreement No. 16-31-070-00 with the city of Corona in an amount not to exceed $170,175; d) Agreement No. 16-31-071-00 with Southern California Edison (SCE) in an amount not to exceed $528,698; and e) Agreement No. 16-31-072-00 with Sprint in an amount not to exceed $77,897; 2) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-073-00 with Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for preliminary engineering for a utility relocation for the project in the amount of $335,999, plus a contingency amount of $84,000, for a total amount not to exceed $419,999; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for these utility relocation agreements. 9. 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION UPDATE Page 65 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) update. 10. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1569 (Steinorth) – Support; b) SB 1197 (Cannella) – Support; c) AB 2783 (E. Garcia) – Support in Concept, Seek Amendments; and d) SB 901 (Bates) – Support in Concept. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 13, 2016 Page 5 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. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Case No(s). RIC 1311348, RIC 1311597, RIC 1311700, RIC 1312676, RIC 1401559, RIC 1511130, and RIC 1602030 14. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL APRIL 13, 2016 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent Cl D Cl ;ef Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D 0 D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D Cl D AGENDA ITEM 4 PRESENTATION Presentation to Riverside County Transportation Commission Kim A. Wilcox Chancellor April 13, 2016 CARB/UCR L. T 1% ,i 11110 GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE rriTr‘ 7 UCR’s research legacy Juan Felipe Herrera, U.S. Poet Laureate Trends are up at UCR DETACH AND SUBMIT TOTHE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: lJ } I 3 f I (, CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBUC COMMENTS: t:V"' PUBUC COMMENTS: , -. =--·-.-11.,..n llf AGBIDA mM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS Ll8TID ON THE AGENDA) ___ _ NAME: I....,.· "' r1 , ,... ---,.. =t...: PHONE NO.: ):--/p 'Jc.'.> CITY ZIPCODI I I PJ I .. _' I , f ''l" _':~ !"!'.:'7_ PHONE NO.:. __________ _ 8TR&1' CITY ZIPCOlll Tisdale, Brian From: Sent: To: Cc: Chuck Wise <wise.chuck@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:44 AM Tisdale, Brian; dmendoza@epicland.com letters4brenda Subject: RCTC Licensing Dear Supervisor Tisdale, My wife and I acquired the Acacia Business Center, subject to the RCTC easement in 2003. At that time the annual fee to RCTC was in the form of a long term lease that started at $980 per year in 1980, and was $2,000 per year at the time of purchase. Our purchase price was $940,000. An appraisal in September of2010, concluded an "as is" market value of $810,000. Our most recent appraisal in January of2016 was $1,180,000 for the existing industrial and office property, and included the full "bundle of rights" conferred with a grant deed of fee simple real estate. The scope of use of the RCTC railroad property, whether leased or licensed, is limited to temporary use, such as outdoor storage of vehicles or containers. It is not comparable to other vacant land in Hemet with public street access, zoning for development, and fee title. The value of the RCTC property to our center is based on the temporary use for storage and we are happy restore an agreement with the RCTC that reflects that value. Please revisit your fee for licensing this property and forward to me a revised agreement. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you. Sincerely, cw Chuck Wise, CCIM Wise Investment Properties, Inc. DRE #01841175 wise.chuck@gmail.com cw@wiseinvestments.net www.wiseinvestments.net 760-224-9000 1 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: CJ~ /;.J /;t,, I I CHECK IF / SUBJECT OF PUBUC COMMENTS: r::J PUBUC COMMENTS:. _________________ _ AGENDA ITEM NO.: r SUBJECT OF D -t-r j,_ CM IJ8TID ON THE AGENDA) (~ AGENDA ITEM: /<--C-1 L--~ $ '<:_ NAME: Brtrtt/u 4-CePJe tf.Fl//s PHONENO.: ?sz-yc;;i-3255 ADDRESS: /0 kJ '2( .'J t, 7 /fentre/-9<2=~---ztt., 8TRl!ET I CITY . ZIP CODI REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.:. ______ _ NAME OF ACllNCY I ORGANIZATION I GROUP BUSINESS ADDRUS: /~ Jtt/ &-~1t:i &e_. cnv'/~0-~· Riverside County Transportation Commission January 26, 2016 The Honorable Chuck Washington Board of Supervisors, District 3 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: APN: 442-120-007 1125 W. Acacia Avenue Hemet, CA 92343 Dear Supervisor Washington: 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 •Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of George and Brenda Willis regarding the location of their business near the railroad tracks in the city of Hemet. Your concern and compassion for your constituents is admirable and your staff has been very conscientious in obtaining information and working with us to ensure we are addressing this issue in a fair manner. In late 2014, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) directed staff to update its contractual arrangements with licensees using Commission property adjacent to the San Jacinto Branch Line. The action was taken to verify the actual uses, terminate unauthorized encroachments, and adjust rental rates to reflect current market conditions. The Commission inherited most of these licenses when the agency purchased the property in 1993 and had not updated its policies or contracts with various licensees until the action taken in 2014. In many cases, rents had not been adjusted for more than 20 years. The license for the Willis property was originally entered into in 1981 by what was then known as Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad. The original licensee was Hemet Valley Insurance Services and Wade and Doris Utt. The license was for 11,781 square feet. The Willis's were billed regularly and paid on-time on a regular basis for many years. One factor that has changed during this time period is the Willis's now occupy 12,543 square feet, which exceeds the terms of the existing license. The Commission action to update licenses and rates has been implemented in a very deliberate manner. Rather than upping rent immediately to market rates, a graduated, three-year approach has been used. In this case, the amount is $1,170 in the first year and will eventually rise to the market rate of $3,512 in the third year. While this is a significant increase from what was originally being billed, it is consistent with market values that have understandably risen since the early 1980's. Moreover, the added area increases the overall fee because additional property is being used. Supervisor Chuck Washington January 26, 2016 Page2 There are a number of options for the Willis's to consider. They could: • License the entire area they are currently using; • Reduce the usage area, which would lower the annual fee; or • Remove the encroachment. The Commission certainly understands this significantly increases the amount being charged to the Willis's but this occurs after years of below-market rates. Changing the policy would require Commission action and would impact a number of properties throughout the county that have already been paying the new license rates. The revenue from the fees is used to maintain the Commission railroad property, which becomes increasingly important with the upcoming start of service for the Perris Valley Line. I would be happy to continue working with you and you staff on this issue; however, a resolution is necessary to ensure public assets are being used correctly and we are consistent in working with our many licensees throughout the county. Sincerely, Ok 1/l t}!,,l,/ Anne Mayer v7 Executive Director AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION    MINUTES  Thursday, January 28, 2016    WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW    The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by  Chair Scott Matas at 1:34 p.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs, 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way,  Palm Springs, California.  Chair Matas provided welcoming comments.    John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, led the Commission in a flag salute in honor of the  men and women that lost their lives in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28,  1986.    Commissioner Ginny Foat welcomed the Commissioners to the city of Palm Springs and  provided sightseeing activities.    CALIFORNIA ROAD CHARGE PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE    Anne Mayer, Executive Director, provided an update on the Road Charge pilot program and  highlighted the following areas:     Why a Road Charge? – SB 1077 created the California Road Charge Technical Advisory  Committee (TAC); TAC recommendations describe a pilot program that will:  o Offer drivers a choice in mileage recording methods;  o Protect drivers’ privacy and personal information;  o Determine the impacts of a road charge on various income levels;  o Determine the impacts of a road charge on urban and rural drivers;  o Seek participation that represent the geographic, demographic, and  socioeconomic diversity of California; and  o No cost to participants;   Volunteers – Need volunteer participants to ensure the pilot study is robust and  effective; and   Volunteer sign up at www.californiaroadchargepilot.com.    The Commissioners discussed the features, benefits, concerns, and term of the pilot program  and its structure.    STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND POLICY REFORM    Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, introduced the Commission’s state legislative  advocate Mark Watts to provide an update on the state legislative activities and policy reform.    Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 2  Mark Watts provided an update on the state legislative activities.  He then provided an  overview of the legislative and administrative recommendations from the California  Transportation Commission (CTC) 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature.    Anne Mayer stated at least $754 million will be cut from the State Transportation Improvement  Program (STIP), which means staff will move projects adopted at the November Commission  meeting.  She provided the projects on the threatened list, as follows:  Interstate 15/French  Valley Parkway interchange, State Route 60 truck climbing/descending lane, CV Link, and   I‐15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange.  Ms. Mayer stated the Commissioners will take action  on the revised STIP proposal at the March Commission meeting.    M/S/C (Busch/Radi) to:    1) Receive an update on state legislative activities; and  2) Endorse the legislative and administrative recommendations from the  California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2015 Annual Report to the  California Legislature.    FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE    Aaron Hake, Governments Relations Manager, welcomed and introduced the Commission’s  legislative advocates Kathy Ruffalo and Cliff Madison to provide an update on federal legislative  activities.    Kathy Ruffalo presented an update on the federal legislative activities.    Cliff Madison provided an update on Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and on  additional federal legislative activities.    Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to the Commission’s lobbyists as transportation experts in  representing the Commission in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.  She expressed appreciation  for the Commissioners continued support in sharing information received with their peers and  other organizations and for approving the CTC’s recommendations.  She announced the CTC  Executive Director Will Kempton is retiring at the end of March and expressed gratitude for all  of his knowledge in transportation.    At this time, Chair Matas left the meeting and Vice Chair John Tavaglione assumed the Chair.    RCTC STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT:  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION  IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY    Anne Mayer discussed ways to solve the challenges to provide better transportation and a  quality of life even in a challenging environment, including decision making, financial impacts,  technical impacts, and public input.  She then explained the panel of experts and staff will cover    Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 3  the technical, financial, and public input areas for the vision crafted at its 2015 Commission  Workshop to identify the ‘sweet spot’ and opportunities for the Commission to move projects  forward.    HDR, Inc. Vice President J.D. Douglas, presented the technical information from the initial  analysis, highlighting the following areas:     Riverside County population employment growth forecast (2012‐2040);   Jobs/housing ratio in Southern California;   A map depicting 2040 travel patterns within Riverside County;   Maps depicting today’s congestion of the highway system and showing areas projected  to be congested in year 2040 with the improvements currently underway in place;   Transit service levels and current ridership;   Measure A: 1989 Western County and Coachella Valley completed projects; projects  under construction for Western County and Coachella Valley; and anticipated future  projects for Western County and Coachella Valley; and   Measure A: Funding splits for Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley.    He explained all of the plans and programs for transportation improvements were evaluated  and pulled from different providers in the county and a needs list was created.  Staff then  looked at the availability of funding sources.    Aaron Hake presented the funding sources for capital improvements, highlighting the following  areas:     Funding sources for capital improvements 2016‐2039 – For existing programs,  discretionary grant programs, possible new sources, and the funding gap;   Funding by mode of transportation;   Historical performance of the county in securing discretionary revenues from key  programs in the past five years; and compared to annual target goal, typically based on  County population share, to identify areas of excellence and potential improvement;   Possible new funding sources and status of the Highway Account of the Highway Trust  Fund 2006‐2024; and   Funding for rail and transit operations and maintenance funding gap by 2040.    The Commissioners discussed the capital funding issues, county population growth data, and  the future technology opportunities.    Sam Gennawey, Katherine Padilla and Associates, presented the public outreach program and  highlighted the following areas:     Transportation Summits were held in the cities of Blythe, Palm Desert, Perris, Riverside,  Temecula, and Winchester; and   Public input:  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 4  o Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information  technology;  o The county benefits when the nexus between transportation and land use  planning is met;  o Recognize the need for better connectivity between rural and urban center; and  o Generate transportation policy by respecting the needs of users and how it  makes their lives better and more convenient.    Mark Watts discussed the public opinion research undertaken last summer and fall.    Aaron Hake presented the public opinion of revenue options, highlighting the following areas:     Revenue options by percentages;   Making decisions/the ’sweet spot’ – Financial and technical impacts, and public input;   Conclusions:  o Riverside County will continue to grow;  o Desire from the public for more integrated transportation and land use planning;  o Despite historic levels of investment in transportation, the public is very unaware  of the Commission or Measure A;  o The public supports tolling;  o New revenue is necessary to meet needs and expectations;  o The public supports transportation but is not ready today to approve new taxes  or fees;  o Even after securing all potential revenue, the gap will be large; and  o Strategies – Planning for the future, maximize the Commission’s assets, increase  funding, and communicate more.    John Standiford reviewed the staff recommendations.    Vice Chair Tavaglione suggested taking the staff recommendations in separate motions starting  with staff recommendation nos. 1‐6.     M/S/C (Spiegel/Rush) to:    1) Direct staff to prepare the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget to  accommodate procurement of a Countywide Integrated Long Range  Transportation Plan;  2) Direct staff to prepare the Commission’s FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate  procurement of a “next Generation” toll feasibility study;  3) Direct staff to prepare the Commission’s FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate  procurement of a “next generation” rail feasibility study, emphasizing  alternate rail service models, alternative project delivery approaches, and  intra‐county service;     Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 5  4) Direct staff to prepare the Commission’s FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate  additional resources needed to execute a long‐term communications and  customer engagement strategy for the purposes of public education and  customer service;  5) Establish Commission policies to encourage funding and development of  projects and programs to accommodate and support multiple travel choices  such as added capacity, access to public transit, and active transportation  modes including bicycling and walking; and  6) Direct staff to provide recommendations for updating funding allocation  policies of current revenue streams.    M/S/C (J. Benoit/Wilson) to:    7) Authorize development of the 2019‐2029 Measure A Western Riverside County  Highway Delivery Plan (2019‐2029 Delivery Plan):  a) The 2019‐2029 Delivery Plan shall commit to fulfilling commitments  deferred in the 2009‐2019 Measure A Western Riverside Highway  Delivery Plan (2009‐2019 Delivery Plan):  i. Interstate 15 Express Lanes between Cajalco Road and State  Route 74;  1. Direct staff to prepare the Commission’s FY 2016/17  Budget to provide funding to initiate project  development;  ii. 71/91 Interchange;  iii. North‐facing connector between SR‐91 and I‐15; and  iv. Continued progress and evaluation of CETAP and alternative  corridors.  b) Development of the 2019‐2029 Delivery Plan shall include a  comprehensive phasing and prioritization study to determine if/how  projects can be scaled and deferred to reflect funding constraints, state  and federal policy challenges, and expected technological innovations.    Vice Chair Tavaglione recommended a modification to staff recommendation no. 8 to replace  the word “submit” with the word “consider” as well as add “if feasible” to the end of the  sentence.    Commissioners Bob Magee and Andrew Kotyuk discussed their concerns for Riverside County  taxpayers regarding rising public safety costs and a new local sales tax measure.    Mark Watts noted there is a cap on sales tax measures in the county.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 6  M/S/C (Radi/Gibbs) to:    8) Adopt as a Commission objective to consider an additional local sales tax  measure to Riverside County voters on the November 2018 or 2020 ballot if  feasible.    No:  Rush    Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for their attention, constant  leadership, and vision.  Staff will come back to the Commission not only through the budget  process but through the policy committees to begin implementing the direction given.    At 4:55 p.m., Vice Chair Tavaglione called for a recess until 6:30 p.m.    RECESS    At 6:30 p.m., Vice Chair Tavaglione reconvened the meeting.    HAVING TOMORROW’S CONVERSATION TODAY – THE CHANGING WORLD OF  COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH    John Standiford presented a number of videos demonstrating the evolution of communication  and public outreach and discussed opportunities for the Commission in these areas.    The Commission workshop adjourned at 7:15 p.m.  The Commission workshop will reconvene  Friday, January 29 at 8:30 a.m.    MINUTES  Friday, January 29, 2016    The second day of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to  order by Chair Matas at 8:30 a.m., at the Hilton Palm Springs, 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way,  Palm Springs, CA.    Anne Mayer provided an overview of the January 28 workshop.    Steven DeBaun, legal counsel, requested to add an urgency item to Closed Session, adding  Case No. RIC 1602030.  The item arose subsequent to the publication of the agenda and must  be addressed at this time.  The addition of an urgency item requires 2/3 vote of the  Commission to add it to the agenda for action.    M/S/C to add the urgency item to the agenda.    Steve DeBaun then announced the Closed Session items.    Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 7  CLOSED SESSION  CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION  Pursuant to Government Code Section 549569.9(d)(1)  Case No. RIC 1505449 and RIC 1602030    There were no announcements from closed session items.    FUTURE CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION – A LOOK AT FUTURE TECHNOLOGY    Robert Yates welcomed and introduced WSP | Parsons Brinckheroff Assistant Vice President   David Ungemah to present the future changes in transportation.    David Ungemah presented the topic of future technology and what it means for planning and  operating roadway and transit systems, highlighting the following areas:     Big changes in society, in transportation, and opportunities;   Value of transportation;   Socio‐demographic, economic, and technology trends;   The digital generation, understanding socioeconomic trends, customization expectation,  rise of the sharing economy, network of trust, digitization of money, and data and  control integration;   Future of transportation and redefining the “peak period”;   Infrastructure adopts industrial controls and automation;   Implications for the future:  o 1) Design to prevent bottlenecks;  o 2) Extensive data collection, analysis, and response;  o 3) Implement a control mindset; and  o 4) Prevention requires commitment;   Transportation as a service and demonstration of concept/automated vehicles;   Future infrastructure:  o 1) Current design standards to accommodate human error and deviation;  o 2) Future design: vehicle automation, connection, and decisioning; and  o 3) Condensed and more efficient use of infrastructure;   Implications for the future – Relationship between vehicle and person changes;   Transformational change is outside the agency’s purview;   Solving congestion;   Enhance accessibility; and   Operations‐oriented focus, agency culture for flexibility, and responsive to new  technologies and systems.    The Commissioners discussed support for the future changes in technology in transportation  and the strategic planning efforts.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 8  CETAP CORRIDORS AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UPDATE    Anne Mayer presented the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process  (CETAP) corridors update, highlighting the following areas:     Riverside County integrated project (RCIP) – Three‐part program:  General Plan, Multiple  Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and CETAP;   MSHCP defined;   CETAP effort – Guidance by a 30‐member committee;   A map depicting the four priority corridors;   Moreno Valley to Redlands/Loma Linda – Strong opposition in San Bernardino County  and focus on Reche Canyon Road and Pigeon Pass Road arterials;   North South Corridor – Many corridor alignments studied, I‐215 corridor between  Newport Road and San Diego County line designated CETAP corridor, and includes  French Valley Parkway;   External corridor Riverside to Orange County – SR‐91 implementation plan options and  Riverside Orange County Corridor Authority (ROCA);   ROCA actions on Irvine‐Corona Expressway (ICE) 2010;   A map depicting the CETAP – East West corridor – Hemet Corona Lake Elsinore (HCLE):  study area encompassed 1000 square miles; 14 alternatives evaluated; Modeling  showed alternatives in the northern part of the study area provided the greatest  transportation benefit;   Tier 1 environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact study (EIS) – Circulated  for public comment July 2002 and included transit only alternatives, which were  rejected because they did not provide a comparable level of benefit for travelers as the  highway alternatives;   Public involvement and planning efforts;   A map depicting the original MCP five build alternatives from I‐15 to SR‐79;   Original project and the public/stakeholder input;   Recap of MCP original project draft EIR/DEIS public review period and comments  received: October 2008 – January 2009;   Key theme in public comments – Concerns regarding issues in the western portion of  the project area between I‐15 and I‐215, including impacts to the communities and to  existing habitat reserves;   RCTC action 2009 – Focus MCP limits to I‐215 and SR‐79 in response to comments  received on the DEIR/DEIS and maintain a long term plan for a future east‐west CETAP  corridor between I‐215 and I‐15;   A map depicting the alternatives no longer considered and the MCP modified  alternatives;   Major RCTC action since 2003   A map depicting the MCP alternatives 4 modified, 5 modified, and 9 modified; and   Current RTP projects.    Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 9  Juan Perez, Transportation and Land Management Agency Director, presented an update on  the CETAP corridors related to County Transportation, highlighting the following areas:     Implementing the CETAP vision – Funding constraints, environmental challenges,  community impacts, and benefits of using multiple routes;   Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor – Support the analysis of the feasibility of  developing Cajalco Expressway and Ethanac Expressway as intra‐county corridors;   A draft/conceptual map depicting the Cajalco Expressway;   Cajalco improvement project timeline;   Maps depicting the existing SR‐74 and the proposed Ethanac/SR‐74/El Toro Expressway;   Riverside County Transportation Department maps depicting:  o The proposed Nichols Road extension conceptual alignment study;  o The proposed Ethanac Road gap closure project from west SR‐74 to I‐215  interchange; and  o The proposed Ethanac Road gap closure project from I‐215 interchange to east  end railroad crossing;   County General Plan policies;   A map depicting the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor – Reche  Canyon/Pigeon Pass Roads; and   Cost estimates for Cajalco Expressway, Ethanac Expressway, and Reche Canyon and  Pigeon Pass Corridors.    The Commissioners discussed the benefits and support for the CETAP vision, funding concerns,  and the importance of working closely with all local jurisdictions and agencies to keep projects  moving forward.    RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE    Robert Yates presented an update for the Coachella Valley‐San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor  service, highlighting the following areas:     Project planning process:  o Phase 1: Task 1: Project work plan and outreach plan and Task 2: Preliminary  service planning and alternatives;  o Phase 2: Task 3: Environmental documentation and Task 4: Service development  plan; and   Project schedule and status.    The Commissioners briefly discussed the service development plan and the alternatives  analysis.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 28 – 29, 2016  Page 10  Anne Mayer provided an update for the special event train service for Coachella and the Stage  Coach Festivals and noted it is anticipated to start in 2017.  Ms. Mayer provided an update for  the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project and expressed the Commission’s goal is to open the PVL to  passengers when the stations are complete and the service is properly setup.    Chair Matas expressed appreciation for the Commissioners’ attendance and reminded the  Commissioners the February Commission meeting is cancelled.    CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT    There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation  Commission, the workshop adjourned at 11:16 a.m.    Respectfully submitted,    Jennifer Harmon  Clerk of the Board  RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION    MINUTES  Wednesday, March 9, 2016    1. CALL TO ORDER    The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by  Chair Scott Matas 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    Commissioner Kevin Jeffries led the Commission in a flag salute.    3. ROLL CALL    Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent    Marion Ashley Shelley Kaplan  Ginny Foat  Rusty Bailey Andrew Kotyuk  Ted Weill  Michael Beauchamp Linda Krupa  Michael Wilson  Ben Benoit Bob Magee    John J. Benoit Scott Mann*    Daryl Busch Scott Matas    Joseph DeConinck Michael Naggar*    Deborah Franklin Robert Radi    Rick Gibbs Dana Reed    Yxstian Gutierrez Adam Rush    Dawn Haggerty Karen Spiegel    Ted Hoffman John F. Tavaglione*    Jan Harnik Chuck Washington    Steven Hernandez Lloyd White    Kevin Jeffries Ella Zanowic    Frank Johnston        *Arrived after the meeting was called to order   4. PUBLIC COMMENTS    Arnold San Miguel, Regional Affairs Officer for the Southern California Association of  Governments (SCAG), announced SCAG’s upcoming events:  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 2   2016 Regional Conference and General Assembly is scheduled for May 5‐6 at the   La Quinta Resort and Club;    2016 Highway Performance Monitoring System Workshop is scheduled for   March 16 at SCAG’s main office and videoconferencing is available; and    27th Annual Demographic Workshop is scheduled for June 13 at the University of  Southern California.    5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 13, 2016    M/S/C (Radi/Johnston) to approve the January 13, 2016 minutes as submitted.    At this time, Commissioner John Tavaglione joined the meeting.    6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS    Steven DeBaun, legal counsel, requested to add an urgency item, to Agenda Item No.  13A, “Closed Session, to add an additional potential case, increasing the potential  number of cases from nine to ten.  The item arose subsequent to the publication of the  agenda and must be addressed at this time.  The addition of an urgency item requires  2/3 vote of the Commission to add it to the agenda for action.    M/S/C (Rush/J. Benoit) to add the urgency agenda item to the Closed Session  calendar.    Steve DeBaun announced a revision to Agenda Item No. 13B, “Closed Session”, removing  Case Nos. RIC 1409217, RIC 1511130, and RIC 1602030 from the agenda.    7. CONSENT CALENDAR    M/S/C (Harnik/Radi) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.    7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS    Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended  December 31, 2015.    7B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS    Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 2015 (3Q 2015).       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 3  7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT    Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended  December 31, 2015.    7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT    Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the second quarter  ended December 31, 2015.    7E. FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 MID‐YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT    Approve an increase of $406,000 in Fiscal Year 2015/16 expenditures for mid‐ year budget adjustments.    7F. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 BUDGET    Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal  Year 2016/17.    7G. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN PLANNING  ORGANIZATION ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 2 PROGRAM OF  PROJECTS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY    1) Receive and file a report on the California Transportation Commission’s  (CTC) approval of the Southern California Association of Governments  (SCAG) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active Transportation  Program (ATP) Cycle 2 program of projects; and  2) Approve funding the city of Coachella’s ATP Cycle 2 Bicycle and  Pedestrian improvements project with $2.2 million of SB 821 funds.    7H. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT  PROGRAM FINANCIAL RESOLUTION    Adopt Resolution No. 16‐001, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation  Commission Certifying Riverside County has Resources to Fund Projects in the  Federal Fiscal Years 2016/17 Through 2021/22 Transportation Improvement  Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program”.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 4  7I. CITY OF CORONA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM REPROGRAMMING  REQUEST    1) Approve the city of Corona’s (Corona) request to reprogram $943,000 of  federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds from the   Magnolia Avenue landscaped median project to the Magnolia Avenue  bridge widening improvement project; and  2) Authorize staff to include the Magnolia Avenue bridge widening  improvement project in the Federal Transportation Improvement  Program (FTIP), and accordingly delete the Magnolia Avenue landscaped  median project from the FTIP.    7J. AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE MID COUNTY  PARKWAY PROJECT    1) Award Agreement No. 15‐31‐093‐00 to Overland, Pacific and Cutler, Inc.  (OPC) for right of way support services for the Mid County Parkway  (MCP) project in the amount of $20,750,000, plus a contingency amount  of $2,075,000, for a total amount not to exceed $22,825,000;  2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel  review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;  3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute notices to  proceed for each phase of the project; and  4) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be  required for the project.    7K. COMMUTER RAIL GRANT RESOLUTIONS    1) Adopt Resolution No. 16‐002, “Resolution of the Riverside County  Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of  the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the  Low Carbon Transit Operation Program”;  2) Adopt Resolution No. 16‐003, “Resolution of the Riverside County  Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of  the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Project: Perris Valley Line  Station Passenger Upgrades in the Amount of $391,049”; and  3) Adopt Resolution No. 16‐005, “Resolution of the Riverside County  Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of Fiscal Year  2015/16 Proposition 1B‐6861‐0002 California Transit Security Grant  Program‐California Transit Assistance Funds to the RCTC Commuter Rail  Program and Designation of Authorized Agent”.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 5  7L. AGREEMENT FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE    Award Agreement No. 16‐45‐044‐00 to Pepe’s Towing for Freeway Service Patrol  (FSP) tow truck services on State Route 60 and Interstate 215 Beat No. 8 for a  three‐year term, plus one two‐year option to extend the agreement, for a total  amount not to exceed $1,291,000.    At this time, Commissioner Scott Mann joined the meeting.    8. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION    Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, presented the State Transportation  Improvement Program (STIP) revision, highlighting the following areas:     2016 STIP revision reduce by $32 million;   STIP new capacity – Five‐year totals;    Shirley Medina stated Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, will provide  additional background and potential options to address this issue.    Aaron Hake presented background information for the STIP funding issues, highlighting  the following areas:     STIP new capacity – Five‐year totals continued;   STIP: How it is funded – Price‐based excise tax on gasoline and STIP receives   44 percent of price‐based gas tax revenue;   California fuel excise tax rate over the last six fiscal years;   2016 STIP: Five‐year program, $0 new capacity;   2016 STIP Revision:  Programmed and deprogrammed funding, Riverside  deprogrammed funding;   Governor’s proposal impact on 2016 STIP – Programmed, deprogrammed,  Caltrans efficiencies, stabilizes price‐base excise tax funds.    At this time, Commissioner Michael Naggar joined the meeting.    Aaron Hake discussed Resolution No. 16‐006 that calls on the Legislature to take action  in special session to stabilize the gas tax revenue from the price‐based excise tax, which  is the source of this issue.    In response to Commissioner Washington’s request for clarification regarding the  impacts caused by the fluctuation of gas prices and vehicle efficiencies, Aaron Hake  stated these items are part of the issue as well as the State Board of Equalization and  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 6  the CTC using five‐year projections.  Also, federal fuel efficiency standards are  increasing, the Governor has a very ambitious plan, and the Legislature adopted goals to  increase the vehicle fleet for electric and hybrids vehicles.    At Commissioner Washington’s request, Anne Mayer further discussed the funding  stability issue.  She stated there have been problems with the STIP decreasing in  revenue prior to 2011, and what is being seen now is a lack of stability in the pricing.   She referred to the resolution for approval and discussed how the Commission is asking  the state to focus on stabilizing transportation funds.    Aaron Hake clarified this resolution is not an endorsement on the Governor’s plan or  any particular proposal.  He then discussed the proposal by Senator Jim Beall supported  by the Commission last year, which is another alternative approach the Legislature could  utilize to address the issue.    At this time, Shirley Medina presented the staff recommendations.    In response to Commissioner John Benoit’s request for clarification on the specifics of  the Governor’s proposal in terms of stabilizing the excise tax, Aaron Hake replied  starting in FY 2017/18, the Governor proposes to eliminate the price based excise tax  and replace it with a 17.3 cent excise tax that does not fluctuate.  The Governor  proposes to index this tax for cost of living and will be distributed the same way the  price‐based excise tax currently does.  He discussed the percentage distributions and  how the calculations were determined.  The proposal would require a two‐thirds vote.    Commissioner Jeffries expressed appreciation to staff for preparing the resolution,  urging the state to stabilize transportation funding.  He briefed the Commission on a  meeting with retired Senator Dennis Hollingsworth and Commissioner Magee regarding  approximately $2 billion of transportation funds reappropriated and repurposed by the  Governor and the Legislature.  He then asked Aaron Hake to elaborate on this theft of  dollars from the transportation program.    Aaron Hake explained there is approximately $1 billion a year diverted from truck  weight fees into the General Fund with a rational by the Governor and Legislature to pay  off the debt service on Proposition 1B bonds.  He stated he will review the specifics of  where the other $1 billion comes from and update the Commission.    In response to Commissioner Dawn Haggerty’s question about the schedule for the  I‐15/Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street interchange project, Commissioner Bob  Magee replied Caltrans is reviewing the project, the roundabouts are the preferred  alternative, and design is expected to begin later this year.  He expressed continuing to  lobby the Commission to assist with funding and work with neighboring jurisdictions to  assist as construction is expected to begin in FY 2018/19.  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 7  In response to Commissioner Haggerty’s question regarding the income generated from  the road charge pilot program, Anne Mayer replied the intent of the legislation was any  vehicle miles traveled fee will replace gas tax and would go into transportation projects  and programs, however, none of those details are worked out yet.    Commissioner Naggar expressed appreciation to Commissioners Marion Ashley,  Washington, and staff for working vigorously in representing the importance of the   I‐15/French Valley Parkway interchange project.  He stated this project will be critical for  economic development.    At this time, Commissioner Daryl Busch left the meeting.    Commissioner Ashley expressed support for the staff recommendation and appreciation  to Commissioner Naggar for his comments.  He then stated the SR‐60 truck  climbing/descending lane project is vital to this region and the entire county.  He  expressed concern for the loss of SR‐79 widening project funds as it is as equally  important.    Commissioner Washington referred to the language in the staff recommendation to  transfer STIP funds from I‐15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project to the   I‐15/French Valley Parkway interchange or SR‐60 truck climbing/descending lane  projects.  He suggested in an effort to avoid any future issues, the Commission prioritize  the priority ranking listed.    Shirley Medina replied the basis for the flexible language in the staff recommendation is  if the SR‐60 truck climbing/descending lane project experienced a cost increase, this  would be the easiest way to fully fund it.  If programming is complete on this project,  the funding would go to the I‐15/French Valley Parkway interchange project.    Commissioner Washington expressed concern that if there is not enough funding left for  the I‐15/French Valley Parkway interchange project to keep the programming viable, the  Commission could potentially lose on that project.    Shirley Medina replied staff’s intent is not to lose money on that project and as funding  becomes available through other discretionary funds, it will be brought back to the  Commission for approval.  She stated as the project becomes shelf‐ready, staff will  evaluate every option for other funding sources.    In response to Commissioner Washington’s request for clarification that the  $15.3 million in STIP funds is enough to keep this project moving forward,  Shirley Medina concurred.       Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 8  Anne Mayer highlighted staff recommendation no. 3 that authorizes the executive  director to modify the STIP revision.  She expressed this will allow staff to protect as  much STIP funding as possible so it stays in Riverside County on the Commission’s  projects.    M/S/C (Ashley/J. Benoit) to:    1) Approve reducing the Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway interchange  project State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) program  funds from $47.6 million to $15,346,000 in accordance with the  California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) revised 2016 STIP Fund  Estimate;  2) Transfer $2,920,000 of STIP funding from the I‐15/Railroad Canyon Road  and Franklin Street interchange project to the I‐15/French Valley  Parkway interchange project or State Route 60 truck  climbing/descending lane project, as determined by staff, in the event  CTC does not allow new project programming;  3) Authorize the Executive Director to modify the STIP revision submittal  based on the ongoing nature of the CTC working with each county  transportation commission to reduce STIP programming by the required  amount of approximately $754 million statewide and the Commission’s  objective to minimize reduction in STIP programming;  4) Direct staff to provide an update on the 2016 STIP revision at the  Budget and Implementation Committee meeting on March 28, 2016;  and  5) Adopt Resolution No. 16‐006, “Resolution of the Riverside County  Transportation Commission Urging the State to Stabilize Transportation  Funding to Avoid Steep Cuts and Delays to Riverside County  Infrastructure Projects”.    9. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE    Aaron Hake presented the presented an update on the state and federal legislative  activities, highlighting the following areas:     AB 1780 (Medina) – Support; AB 1883 (Linder) – Support; AB 1943 (Linder) –  Sponsor; AB 2014 (Melendez) – Sponsor; AB 2170 Frazier – Support; and AB 2452  (Quirk) – Support;   State regulations – SB 743 (Steinberg) implementation guidelines; and     Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 9   Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization act – H.R. 4441 and  companion Senate Bill – New federal rule, sales tax revenue from aviation fuel  must stay on airport property, at stake: airport eligibility for federal grants,  opposition from Self‐Help Counties Coalition, and federalism.    In response to Commissioner Adam Rush’s clarification on AB 2014 (Melendez) with  regard to identifying any specific areas of funding, Aaron Hake replied the bill as it is  currently drafted requires California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans to prepare an  analysis of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) beats that should be added to the system.   Funding for this program has been flat for almost 10 years and the Commission is asking  the Administration to identify the needs and place those needs in its budget request  every year.  He stated it is a $25 million program statewide and staff believes there are  opportunities within the existing budget to increase this program.    In response to Commissioner Rush’s question on the FAA issue if the various airports  entered into contracts for fuel sources from a variety of private and public entities  throughout the state, Aaron Hake replied he is not sure how that works at the airports  and would need to research that.    Anne Mayer stated with regards to the FSP program, it is one of the Commission’s most  popular programs as it is very effective.  She stated staff is working closely with Caltrans  and CHP, noting these agencies have to operate within the budget provided, which is  not based on need.    Commissioner Jeffries expressed appreciation the Commission is taking a proactive  approach.  He stated the Commission should support this bi‐partisan package of bills  and since this county has a bi‐partisan coalition, the Commission should ask all of its  legislators to get behind this.  He stated the Commission also needs to be prepared to  promptly withdraw its support when these bills are morphed into something other then  what the Commission endorsed.    Commissioner Washington expressed his support for the FSP program.  He then referred  to the FAA proposal, noting there are very few revenue sources to maintain and  preserve airports.  He expressed it is important to understand why the general aviation  community would prefer to see the dollars spent at an airport stay at that airport.    M/S/C (Radi/Tavaglione) to:    1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation;  2) Adopt the following bill positions:  a) AB 1780 (Medina) – Support;  b) AB 1833 (Linder) – Support;  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 10  c) AB 1943 (Linder) – Sponsor;  d) AB 2014 (Melendez) – Sponsor;  e) AB 2170 (Frazier) – Support;  f) AB 2452 (Quirk) – Support; and  g) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization act   (H.R. 4441 and companion Senate bill) – Seek Amendments.    At this time, Chair Matas left the meeting and Vice Chair John Tavaglione assumed the Chair.    10. PRESENTATION ON THE 91 STEER CLEAR – A SUCCESS STORY    Vice Chair Tavaglione expressed appreciation to staff for making the 55‐hour closure as  painless as possible for the city of Corona and surrounding areas.    David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented an update on the 91 Project and the 91  Steer Clear 55‐hour closure, highlighting the following areas:     91 Project status – Construction: more than 60 percent complete; utility  relocations: 71 percent complete; excavation: 68 percent complete; structure  walls: 60 percent complete; drainage systems: 43 percent complete; concrete  paving: 48 percent complete; barrier rail: 31 percent complete, and bridges:   69 percent complete;   Partnerships;   Outreach campaign;   Metrolink promotion;   Traffic Management Plan;    Emergency Response Plan;   Photos depicting:  o the Maple Street Bridge demolition, west half of bridge;  o the Maple Street westbound on‐ramp flyover support beams and  framework placement; and   o the eastbound 91 concrete paving work near I‐15;   All lanes reopened by Monday, February 22 at 3:30 a.m; and   91 Steer Clear time lapsed video, also available at rctc.org and sr91project.info.    Anne Mayer noted during the 55‐hour closure, staff took photos of the construction  workers and posted them on social media.  It was rewarding to see the proud reaction  of the workers and their families.    David Thomas stated one unique characteristic of this closure was its completion in   38 days from inception to implementation.  He stated the public process utilized for this  began with the Corona Citizens Task Force who embraced the idea, which gave staff  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 11  momentum to proceed to the next step and get the necessary public support.  He then  discussed 1) the cooperation and coordination with Caltrans that allowed the  Commission to utilize changeable message signs in advance of the closure; 2) the social  media engagement; and 3) the significant amount of work completed.    Vice Chair Tavaglione expressed appreciation to David Thomas for his exceptional  leadership on this closure.  He explained from his supervisorial perspective, there were  no phone calls or e‐mails to his office during this closure, which is a testament to staff  and its coordination efforts.  He then expressed gratitude to Anne Mayer for her  leadership of the organization.    Commissioner Bailey concurred with Vice Chair Tavaglione’s comments and explained  with every challenge there comes opportunity and lessons learned.  He suggested taking  more opportunities such as this to communicate the Commission’s successes, the brand  of the Commission, and to prove its value to the residents.  He expressed the branding  or messaging for the 91 Steer Clear did not seem to have a connection to the  Commission.    At this time, Commissioner J. Benoit left the meeting.    Commissioner Spiegel expressed appreciation to Commissioner Bailey for his comments.   She explained initially the focus was to minimize any negativity, which was clearly  accomplished.  She stated many residents embraced this closure as being very positive,  which to her means success.    Anne Mayer expressed her appreciation to the 91 Project team.  She expressed  gratitude to the commuters who stayed away from the area as they heeded the  message and the citizens of the city of Corona who were helpful during the closure by  calling the helpline or sending e‐mails if something was not working well so the team  could respond to it.    11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION    There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar.    12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT    12A. Commissioner Scott Mann announced:     Riverside County Division of the League of Cities (Division) bi‐monthly  Mayor’s Roundtable is scheduled for March 11 at 8:00 a.m. at Tukwet  Canyon Country Club and Senator Richard Roth is the guest speaker;  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 12   City of Temecula is hosting the General Membership meeting for the  Division scheduled for March 14, and he expressed appreciation to  Commissioner Naggar and his team for hosting this event; and   The Division is hosting a lobbying training event scheduled for April 1  from 8:00 a.m. – Noon for the cities and council members for Legislative  Action Day on April 27, and suggested the Commission partner for this  event.    12B. Commissioner Harnik announced:     Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional  Conference and General Assembly is scheduled for May 5‐6 at the  La Quinta Resort and Club;   SCAG’s 27th Annual Demographic Workshop – The Continued Rise of the  Millennials is scheduled for June 13 from 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. at  California Science Center; and    A partially SCAG‐funded demonstration project in the city of Palm Desert  will occur during the time of SCAG’s General Assembly in working on an  area in the city to create a sense of place, quality of life, and to attract  millennials.  She invited the Commissioners to this event.    12C. Commissioner Deborah Franklin announced the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation  Dedication Ceremony is scheduled for March 10 at 10:00 a.m. located at the  Rio Ranch Market parking lot.    12D. Michael Beauchamp, Caltrans District 8, announced SEMA Construction, Inc.  began striping for the final configuration along the 91 HOV project on March 8.   The eastbound lanes will be completed first, then the westbound lanes.    At this time, Commissioners Yxstian Gutierrez and Jeffries along with Caltrans representative  Beauchamp left the meeting.     13. CLOSED SESSION    13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION  Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of  Section 54956.9  Potential Number of Case(s): 10    13B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION   Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)   Case No(s). RIC 1311700  Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes  March 9, 2016  Page 13  There were no announcements from Closed Session items.    14. ADJOURNMENT    There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County  Transportation Commission, Vice Chair Tavaglione adjourned the meeting at 11:26 a.m.   The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,  April 13, 2016, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon  Street, Riverside.    Respectfully submitted,    Jennifer Harmon  Clerk of the Board  AGENDA ITEM 8A BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Investment Policy Review BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-007, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy”; and 2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section XIV of the Investment Policy requires an annual investment policy review and specifically states that the “Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting.” Based on a review of the Investment Policy approved by the Commission on September 10, 2014, and consideration of changes to the California Government Code as of January 1, 2016, staff determined that no changes were necessary. However, a few minor cosmetic changes were made for consistency purposes. Staff consulted with the Commission’s operating portfolio investment manager and financial advisor, as well as the County Treasurer’s Office, in order to determine an appropriate level of changes primarily affecting the Commission’s operating portfolio while adhering to the investment objectives, in priority order, of safety, liquidity, and return on investment. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 16-007 2) Investment Policy (draft) Agenda Item 8A 1 BLANK ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 16-007 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”) currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission’s policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Investment Policy, as revised on April 13, 2016, and attached as Exhibit A. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April, 2016. _____________________________________ Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _________________________________ Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 2 BLANK INVESTMENT POLICY I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a prudent investment program and to organize and formalize investment-related activities. II.Scope It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and investment activities under the direction of the Commission. Investment activities may be classified between operating and bond/debt portfolios. III.Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the Commission’s Administrative Code, the Board’s management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The Executive Director may delegate these duties to his designee (“Chief Financial Officer”). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. IV.Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Commission. Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion. Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 3 V. Objective The Commission’s primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be: 1. Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio. 2. Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow requirements. 3. Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission shall be designed with the objective of maximizing return on its investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity. The Commission may from time to time sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow schedules, yield opportunities existing between market sectors, or simply market timing. VI. Investments California Government Code Section 53601 governs the investments permitted for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the investments listed in Section VI.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non-U.S. Government issuer or non-Federal Agency issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10% (direct and indirect commitments). Rating requirements where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is subject to a rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, the Chief Financial Officer shall be authorized to act immediately and to notify the Board of any actions taken in regards to the security. The course of action to be followed will then be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering such factors as the reason for the rate drop, prognosis for recovery or further rate drops, and the market price of the security. 1. Eligible Investments A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 4 B. Federal Agency Securities. Federal agency or United States government-sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. C. Municipal Bonds. Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the other 49 United States, in addition to California, payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency or authority of any of the other 49 United States, in addition to California. Such securities must have a maximum maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at least one Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) as follows: at least “Aa3/AA-/or AA-“ which denotes “Aa3” by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s), or “AA-" by Standard & Poor’s (S&P), or “AA-" by Fitch Ratings (Fitch); or as otherwise approved by the Commission. Registered general obligation treasury notes or bonds of any of the 50 United States. Such securities must have a maximum maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at least one NRSRO as follows: at least “Aa3/AA-/or AA-“ or as otherwise approved by the Commission. Taxable or tax-exempt bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within the State of California with a maximum maturity of five (5) years and ratings from at least one NRSRO as follows: at least “Aa3/AA-/or AA-“ (the minimum rating shall apply to the local agency, irrespective of any credit enhancement), including bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by either the local agency, a department, board, agency, or authority of the local agency, or of any local agency within this state. Investments in municipal bonds are further limited to 25% of surplus funds. D. Tri-Party Repurchase Agreements. Tri-party repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short-term investments not to exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into tri-party repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated “A” or better by two NRSROs. Counterparties should also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least P-1/A-1/ or F-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 5 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying tri-party repurchase agreements must be delivered to the Commission's custodian or fiscal agent bank versus payment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each tri-party repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For any tri-party repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on an on-going basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral. The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to tri-party repurchase agreement. The Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counterparty with which it enters into tri-party repurchase agreements. E. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium-term notes, defined as all corporate and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five (5) years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Eligible investment shall be rated “Aa3/AA-/or AA-” or better by at least one NRSRO. Investments in U.S. Corporate Debt are further limited to 25% of surplus funds. F. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2): (1) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation. (B) Has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). (C) Has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated “A” or higher by at least one NRSRO. (2) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 6 limited liability company. (B) Has program-wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond. (C) Has commercial paper that is rated at least “P-1/A-1/or F-1”, or the equivalent, by at least one NRSRO. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 25% of surplus funds. G. Banker’s Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker’s acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker’s acceptances are restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in banker’s acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in the banker’s acceptances of any one commercial bank. H. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.) and that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations. The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by accompany shall have met either of the following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies may charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. I. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund (“RCPIF”). The Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 7 Fund. As on-going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: • A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. J. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”). The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on-going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: • A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. K. Certificates of Deposit. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCD’s): NCDs are money market instruments issued by a bank. They specify that a sum of money has been deposited, payable with interest to the bearer of the certificates on a certain date. NCDs are issued by nationally or state chartered bank or state or federal savings and loan Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 8 association. All purchases must be from institutions rated the highest letter and number rating (e.g., P-1/A-1/or F-1) as provided for by at least one NRSRO, as designated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The maturity of NCDs shall not exceed 180 days to maturity, and purchases of NCDs shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Commission’s investment portfolio. NCDs shall be evaluated in terms of the credit worthiness of the issuing institution, as these deposits are uninsured and uncollateralized promissory notes. FDIC-insured Certificates of Deposit: The principal amount of the investment must be federally insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). No more than the prevailing FDIC insured coverage amount may be invested with any one deposit. Certificates of Deposit placed through the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS) shall be considered fully insured, assuming that the total amount invested with any participating bank is limited to the prevailing FDIC insured coverage amount. Interest on the principal must be paid to the Commission at least annually. The placement of Certificates of Deposit with local banks that qualify in accordance with Government Code section 53601(h) is encouraged. The Commission, at its discretion, may invest a portion of its surplus funds in certificates of deposit at a commercial bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, or credit union using a private sector entity to assist in the placement of such certificates, provided that it complies with Government Code Section 53601.8. Such investments may not exceed in total twenty percent (20%) of the Commission’s funds invested pursuant to Government Code Sections 53601.8, 53635.8 and 53601, and shall have a maximum maturity of one (1) year from the date of the deposit. Collateralized Certificates of Deposit: For investments exceeding $100,000, there will be a waiver of collateral for the first $100,000 deposited and protected by FDIC insurance. The remainder of the deposit shall be fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities having maturities less than five years. The District must receive written confirmation that these securities have been pledged in repayment of the time deposit. The securities pledged as collateral must have a current market value greater than the dollar amount of the deposit in keeping with the ratio requirements specified in Section 53652 of the Government Code. Additionally, a statement of the collateral shall be provided to the Commission on a monthly basis. Such investments may not exceed in total fifteen percent (15%) of the Commission’s funds invested pursuant to Government Code Sections 53601.8, 53635.8 Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 9 and 53601, and shall have a maximum maturity of one (1) year from the date of the deposit. L. Time Deposits. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured money market savings accounts or time deposits which are deposited through depository institutions which are participants of the Money Market Insured Deposit Account Service (“MMIDAS”). M. Mortgage and Asset-backed Securities. Any mortgage pass- through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage- backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable-backed bond of a maximum maturity of five (5) years’ maturity. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer and rated at least “A3/A-/or A-“ for the issuer’s debt as provided by at least one NRSRO and rated in the rating category of “AAA” or its equivalent (excluding U.S. Government/Agency-backed structured products which will be permitted with their prevailing ratings even if those ratings are below the rating category of “AAA”) by at least one NRSRO. Purchase of these securities may not exceed 10% of the Commission’s operating investment portfolio. 2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this Policy. With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond reserve fund proceeds beyond the five (5) years if prudent in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer. 3. Ineligible Investments As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest-only strips or in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 10 investment program approved by the Board. VII. Maximum Maturities Maturities of investments will be selected to provide necessary liquidity, minimize interest rate risk, and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis will be monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds. Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five (5) years. VIII. Performance Standards The Chief Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio’s performance. IX. Reporting The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board and the Executive Director, within 30 days following the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information: • Type of investment • Name of issuer • Date of maturity • Date of purchase • Par value • Original purchase cost • Call date (if applicable) • Current market value of securities • Unrealized market value gain/loss • Coupon rate, if applicable • Yield to maturity • Credit quality, as determined by one or more NRSROs, of each investment • Average duration of portfolio • Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter • A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 11 " A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be, available. X. Investment Procedures The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board s designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission s investment policies and establishing written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions, reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies and procedures. XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the Commission s policy to purchase securities only from those authorized institutions and firms. Separate lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase agreements and those approved for the purchase of other securities. If an investment advisor is used, they may use their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions for investment purposes. To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by the state as a broker-dealer, or from a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, from a national or state-chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary government securities dealers rated  A or better by two NRSROs. Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least P-1/A-1/or F-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the basis of the firm s expertise and credit worthiness. The Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 12 Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the Commission. Each broker/ dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which includes the firm’s most recent financial statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire. XII. Safekeeping and Custody To protect the Commission’s assets, all securities owned by the Commission shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission’s name by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures; the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered. Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. In addition, delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of interest: 1. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 2. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose any material financial interest in any financial institution that conducts business with the Commission, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the Commission’s portfolio. 3. Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Commission. XIV. Investment Policy Review Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 13 The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting. Revised September 10, 2014April 13, 2016 14 AGENDA ITEM 8B BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments to Agreement with BNSF Railway for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project at the West Porphyry Overhead STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve reallocation adjustments to the construction and maintenance (C&M) agreements with BNSF Railway (BNSF) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project): a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00 East Porphyry Overhead decrease in the amount of $108,460 for a total amount not to exceed $353,861; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $286,079 for a total amount not to exceed $721,163; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $85,177 for a total amount not to exceed $780,977; 2) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-114-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with BNSF for extended flagging services for an additional amount of $1 million, increase in the amount of $479,716 from the above reallocation adjustments, and use of $455,894 of contingency, for a total amount not to exceed $6,921,234, resulting in a remaining contingency of $276,240 and total C&M agreements amount not to exceed $9,053,475; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 91 Project crosses over BNSF property in four locations, at the following existing grade separated overhead locations: 1. East Porphyry Overhead, located just south of the 15/91 interchange; 2. East Prado Overhead, located between the 71/91 interchange and the Serfas Club Drive interchange; 3. West Porphyry Overhead, located just west of the 15/91 interchange; and 4. West Prado Overhead, located adjacent to the SR-91/Green River Road interchange. Agenda Item 8B 15 The agreements with BNSF are required any time an existing grade separation is modified. During the design phase of the 91 Project, staff worked with the design-builder in the development of the project plans to ascertain the extent of the impacts to the existing BNSF grade separation structures. In that same time period, staff worked with BNSF and Caltrans in the development of three-party C&M agreements (one for each of the four locations) that would formalize the scope of work, obligations of each party, right of way required for the widening associated with the project, and costs for the respective right of way and associated BNSF provided flagging services. The right of way costs associated with each location are comprised of permanent footing easements, a permanent aerial easement, and a temporary construction license. At its May 14, 2014 meeting, the Commission approved the following four agreements with BNSF in the amount of $7,321,341, plus a contingency amount of $732,134, for a total amount not to exceed $8,053,475: a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00, East Porphyry Overhead in the amount of $462,321; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead in the amount of $1,007,242; c) Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, West Porphyry Overhead in the amount of $4,985,624; and; d) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead in the amount of $866,154. It should be noted a portion of the cost associated with the West Porphyry Overhead agreement, or $3,616,499, is allocated for BNSF-provided flagging services for all four locations. Part of the right of way costs, specifically construction easements, for all four of the Commission approved C&M agreements were estimated based upon a construction duration of 36 months. However, staff, working with the design-builder, finalized the agreements using the costs associated with reduced construction durations, which resulted in the following agreement values: a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00, East Porphyry Overhead in the amount of $353,861; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead in the amount of $721,163; c) Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, West Porphyry Overhead in the amount of $4,921,234; and; d) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead in the amount of $780,977. These agreements, as amended, result in a remaining authorization amount of $544,106, excluding contingency. At the end of last year, it became apparent to staff the originally estimated budget for flagging services would not be adequate to complete the work involved. Staff reviewed the cost for flagging services to date and determined an additional $2 million would be required to ensure enough flagging services would be available to complete the work. Agenda Item 8B 16 Staff recommends $455,894 of the contingency amount plus $544,106 of the remaining Commission authorized right of way funding ($64,390 included in West Porphyry Overhead and $479,716 to be reallocated from the other three), for a total amount of $1 million, be used to partially offset the increased cost of flagging. Therefore, Commission approval of an additional $1 million is requested to fund the total increase in flagging cost of $2 million, for a total amount not to exceed $6,921,234. As a result, the remaining contingency is $276,240, and the total authorization for the four BNSF agreements is $9,053,475. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $1,000,000 Source of Funds: Sales Tax and Toll Bond Proceeds, TIFIA Loan Proceeds Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81304 262 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/29/2016 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 14-31-114-01 Agenda Item 8B 17 BLANK West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 08-RIV-91 PM 6.93 BNSF Agreement No. BF-10006322 STATE Contract No. 08R191 RCTC Agreement No. 14-31-114-00 W. Porphyry (Temescal Bridge and Overhead) STATE Br. No. 56-0446 DOT No. 026522X San Bernardino Subdivision LS 7602 MP 23.43 This SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT , is executed to be effective as of this ______ day of _____________, 201_ (“Effective Date”), by and between BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("BNSF"), the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as ("STATE"), and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION hereinafter referred to as (“RCTC”), a public entity of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as (“Parties”). RECITALS: BNSF, STATE, and RCTC are parties to a Construction and Maintenance Agreement, dated July 11, 2014, identified in BNSF’s records as BNSF Contract No. BF-10006322, (“West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement”) which covers any and all work related to the construction involving the modification of the West Porphyry Overhead “(OVERHEAD)” providing for its partial demolition, widening, construction of express lanes, and new ramp connections to Interstate Highway I-15 to accommodate the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project; WHEREAS, the cost and payment for all railroad work required for the modification of the East Prado Overhead, the West Prado Overhead, the East Porphyry Overhead, as well as the OVERHEAD in connection with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project is provided for in the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement; WHEREAS, RCTC desires to extend the term for the Temporary Construction License, as further described herein below, for the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement an additional Three (3) months; WHEREAS, RCTC desires to also extend the terms for the Temporary Construction Licenses for the modification of the East Prado Overhead, the West Prado Overhead, in the East Porphyry Overhead projects; WHEREAS the extension of the terms for the Temporary Construction Licenses will require additional flagging services which will increase the cost of railroad work. The parties hereto are in agreement to the supplementing of the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement as follows: AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, it is mutually agreed that the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement is hereby supplemented and amended as follows: Article II, Section 1 and Section 3 are amended to read as follows: 1. Upon RCTC’s payment to BNSF of an administration fee in the sum of Two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($2,000.00) and the payment of Three Hundred Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Two and No/100 Dollars ($371,782.00) as compensation for a Temporary Construction License fee for a temporary non-exclusive license, herein called, (“Temporary Construction License”) for the initial term of Twenty Eight (28) months and payment to BNSF of an additional administration fee in the sum of Two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($2,000.00) and payment of Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four and No/100 Dollars ($39,834.00), as compensation to extend the term of the Temporary Construction License Three (3) months, BNSF hereby grants to RCTC, its successors and assigns, upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, to construct the Project, as well as the East Porphyry 18 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 2 Overhead (I-15) project, across or upon that portion of BNSF's Rail Corridor shown on Exhibit A-1, as described further in the Legal Description, Exhibit H and shown on Parcel Map Exhibit H-1, excepting and reserving BNSF’s rights, and the rights of any others who have obtained, or may obtain, permission or authority from BNSF, to do the following: (a) Operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate any and all existing railroad track or tracks, wires, pipelines and other facilities of like character upon, over or under the surface of said Rail Corridor; (b) Construct, operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate upon said Rail Corridor, without limitation, such facilities as BNSF may from time to time deem appropriate, provided such facilities do not materially interfere with RCTC’s construction of the Project; (c) Otherwise use or operate the Rail Corridor as BNSF may from time to time deem appropriate, provided such use or operations does not materially interfere with STATE’s use of the of the OVERHEAD; (d) Require RCTC or its Contractor to execute a Temporary Construction Crossing Agreement, for any temporary crossing requested to aid in the construction of the Project. The term of the Temporary Construction License, as extended, shall begin on the Notice to Commence Construction date as set forth hereinafter in Article III, Section 15 and ends on the earlier of (i) substantial completion of the Project, or (ii) Thirty One (31) months following the Notice to Commence Construction. The Temporary Construction License and related rights to be given by BNSF to RCTC shall be without warranty of title of any kind, express or implied, and no covenant of warranty of title will be implied from the use of any word or words therein contained. The Temporary Construction License shall be for the construction of the Project, as well as the East Porphyry Overhead (I-15) DOT No. 026595H project, and for no other purpose. In the event STATE or RCTC is evicted by anyone owning, or claiming title to or any interest in said Rail Corridor, BNSF will not be liable to STATE or RCTC for any damages, losses or any expenses of any nature whatsoever. BNSF shall not grant similar rights to others, subsequent to the date of this Agreement, that impair or interfere with the rights granted to RCTC pursuant to the Temporary Construction License. 3. BNSF will furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment for railroad work required for the construction of the Project. The Parties agree that the estimated cost of all railroad work required for the modification of the East Prado Overhead, the West Prado Overhead, the East Porphyry Overhead, as well as the OVERHEAD in connection with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project is as shown on Exhibit D attached to the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement and made a part hereof. Any item of work incidental to the items listed on Exhibit D not specifically mentioned therein may be included as a part of this SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT upon written approval of RCTC, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The estimated cost for additional flagging services, in the amount of Two Million No/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00), made necessary due to the extension of the terms for the Temporary Construction Licenses, has been aggregated with the railroad work cost estimates shown on said Exhibit D and shown on Exhibit D-1 which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Said Exhibit D-1 shall be and it is hereby substituted in the place and stead of Exhibit D attached to and made a part of the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement with like force and effect as though originally attached thereto and made a part thereof and any reference in the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement to the Exhibit D shall be deemed to be a reference to Exhibit D-1 of this SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. Construction of the Project will include the following principal elements of railroad work by BNSF: (a) Procurement of materials, equipment and supplies necessary for the railroad work; (b) Preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation; (c) Furnishing of flagging services necessary for the safety of BNSF's property and the operation of its trains during construction of the Project as set forth in further detail on Exhibit C, attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof; (d) Furnishing of engineering and inspection as required in connection with the construction of the Project; and (e) Providing a contract project coordinator, at RCTC’s expense, to serve as a project manager for the Project. 19 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 3 Article V, Section 21 is amended to read as follows: 21.Any notice provided for herein or concerning this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed sufficiently given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Parties at the following addresses: BNSF: Manager Public Projects Jason Sanchez 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: Jason.Sanchez@bnsf.com Director Bridge Engineering Ron Berry 4515 Kansas Avenue Kansas City, KS 66106 Email: ronald.berry@bnsf.com Project Engineer Greg Rousseau 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: Greg.Rousseau@bnsf.com Division Engineer Jimmy Capps 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: jimmy.capps@bnsf.com RCTC: Michael Blomquist Toll Program Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Office: (951) 778-1098 Fax (951) 787-7920 Email: mblomquist@rctc.org STATE: Department of Transportation Ben Martin Office Chief for Railroads and Utilities Relocation Division of Right of Way & Land Surveys 1120 N. Street, MS 37 Sacramento, CA 95814-5690 Office: (916) 654-5413 Email: ben.martin@dot.ca.gov 22.Except as herein specifically supplemented and amended, the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement remains in full force and affect. Signature Pages to follow: 20 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY By: Printed Name: Steve Anderson Title: Vice President Engineering RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION signature page to follow. 21 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: _____________________________________________ Name and Title REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By:__________________________________________ Name and Title REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: __________________________________________ Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:__________________________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA signature page to follow. 22 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead Supplement, February 09, 2016 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: __________________________________________ Name: Ben Martin Title: Office Chief for Railroads and Utilities Relocation Division of Right of Way & Land Surveys APPROVED AS TO FORMS AND PROCEDURES: By:__________________________________________ ROGER FORMANEK, Attorney Department of Transportation APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: By:__________________________________________ Denny Fong, P.E. Railroad Agreements Engineer 23 PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK BUDGET YEAR AMOUNT 406283004 Inspector/Coordinator 2014 151,500.00$ 406283005 Inspector/Coordinator 2015 252,500.00$ 406283006 Inspector/Coordinator 2016 202,000.00$ 406283007 Inspector/Coordinator 2017 30,300.00$ Total 636,300.00$ 406283009 Structual and Other Submittal Reviews 2014 80,800.00$ 406283008 Structual and Other Submittal Reviews 2015 80,800.00$ Total 161,600.00$ 406283000 Flagging 2014 421,733.00$ 406283001 Flagging 2015 1,827,523.00$ 406283002 Flagging 2016 527,171.00$ 210220000 Flagging 2016 2,000,000.00$ 406283003 Flagging 2017 42,172.00$ Total 4,818,599.00$ Grand Total 5,616,499.00$ East Porphyry - DOT No. 026595H West Porphyry - DOT No. 026522X West Prado - DOT No. 026533K RECAPITULATION EXHIBIT D-1 East Prado - DOT No. 026532D BNSF COST ESTIMATE for the ”SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project” 24 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8C BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Advance of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds to the City of Jurupa Valley BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-72-074-00 with the city of Jurupa Valley for advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funds to advance up to $1,167,000, utilizing funding from the 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) program; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission established a commercial paper program in 2005 and subsequently issued sales tax revenue bonds in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to provide advance funding for projects included in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan program. Some local jurisdictions requested the ability to utilize the commercial paper program to advance LSR projects and highway and regional arterial (Highway) projects. Advance funding agreements were executed with three cities, which are the cities of Blythe, Hemet, and Indio for certain LSR projects and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments for certain Highway projects. As a result of the recent recession resulting in fluctuating Measure A revenues and the need to preserve debt capacity for significant Commission highway projects, staff did not seek new advance funding requests. However, in April 2011, the Commission approved the city of Canyon Lake’s (Canyon Lake) request for funding in an amount not to exceed $600,000, for the Railroad Canyon Road project as an advance of its share of 2009 Measure A Western County LSR funds. Staff evaluated this request and supported an advance funding agreement with Canyon Lake based on the amount of advance, unique considerations of Canyon Lake and its limited network and ability to be more cost-effective by completing additional construction Agenda Item 8C 25 work that was fully funded. There was no significant impact to Canyon Lake’s ability to maintain or construct facilities due to reduction of LSR allocation resulting from repayment obligations. In January, Commission staff met with Jurupa Valley staff to discuss a funding shortfall on the Limonite Avenue widening project. The proposed projects limits are from Etiwanda Avenue to Bain Street and will consist of widening from two to five lanes, including two mixed flow lanes in each direction with paved shoulders and left turn bays, as necessary. All rights of way have been secured for the project, and the project will be ready to advertise for construction in May and begin construction this summer. The estimated construction cost is $4,207,000, and in January 2014 the Commission approved $1,882,000 in MARA funding based on a 2013 Multi- Funding Call for Projects (Call for Projects). The balance to be funded is $2,325,000. In Jurupa Valley’s Call for Projects application, it originally indicated it had $1.9 million in local match funds comprised of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and Measure A LSR; however, in order to obtain the maximum score under the local match criterion, Jurupa Valley increased its local match to $2.3 million. In January, following the meeting with Jurupa Valley staff, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Public Works Committee Technical Advisory Committee approved an amendment to the Northwest Zone Transportation Improvement Program adding $658,000 of TUMF funds for the construction phase of this project (see attached letter). Jurupa Valley indicated it has $500,000 available in Measure A LSR allocations received by the city from the Commission, leaving $1,167,000 in local match funds to be identified. As a result of extensive discussions between the Commission and Jurupa Valley staff and consideration of other potential federal and state funding opportunities, Jurupa Valley requested consideration of an advance of its share of Measure A LSR in order to continue progress toward construction on this shelf-ready project. Measure A LSR allocations are disbursed monthly to eligible cities and the county upon receipt from the State Board of Equalization. Staff evaluated this request and supports an advance funding agreement with Jurupa Valley based on the following: • The project will improve safety conditions for motorists traveling on Limonite Avenue; • Since the Commission does not have available bond proceeds to fund the advance, the Commission can lend available MARA funds as the source to fund the advance without having a significant, negative impact on the Commission’s MARA program under the condition that Jurupa Valley repay the advance by applying 65 percent of its monthly Measure A LSR allocations until the advance is paid in full and no later than June 30, 2018; • In consideration for the advance of funds, Jurupa Valley agrees to not withdraw its participation in the Western Riverside County TUMF and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) programs if the advance has not been repaid in full; and Agenda Item 8C 26 " The rate of interest will be based on the interest rate earned by the Commission on deposits held in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund, currently 0.51 percent, plus 0.50 percent per annum for administration costs related to the advance. In the past many of the advance agreements entered into by the Commission with its member agencies included a lease/leaseback agreement to secure the repayment of Measure A LSR. In this case, Jurupa Valley stated to the Commission it does not own property, which could be used to secure the advance in this manner. Therefore, this requirement has been deleted from the agreement. While this makes the advance somewhat less secure, staff believes the short repayment term, as well as Jurupa Valley s long-term commitment to the TUMF and MSHCP programs provides adequate security to support the transaction. Since this request by Jurupa Valley is considered a special situation, staff conducted preliminary due diligence procedures with consideration of the advance funding guidelines approved by the Commission in September 2005. Staff is requesting Commission approval of this advance funding agreement; however, such approval should not be interpreted by other jurisdictions as an indication of the availability of funds for new advance funding requests. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $1,167,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Western County Measure A Regional Arterial funds as an advance of Local Streets and Roads funds Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 266 12401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/18/2016 Attachments: 1) February 18, 2016 Letter From WRCOG to City of Jurupa Valley 2) Agreement No. 16-72-074-00 (Draft) Agenda Item 8C 27 BLANK 28 ATTACHMENT 1 BLANK Agreement No. 16-72-074-00 AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF 2009 MEASURE “A” LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS 1.Parties and Date. This Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this day of , 2016, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“RCTC” or “Commission”) and the City of Jurupa Valley (“City”) located in the County of Riverside, State of California: 2.Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 The City is a municipality with one local road requiring maintenance, development and rehabilitation hereunder. 2.3 In 1988, RCTC enacted and the voters of Riverside County (“County”) approved Measure “A” (1989 Measure ‘A’”) which authorized RCTC to impose a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to twenty years. This tax is popularly known as a one-half cent sales tax. 2.4 The 1989 Measure “A” tax was due to expire in June 2009, but on November 5, 2002, a thirty year extension of the half-cent sales tax was approved by voters of the County (“2009 Measure ‘A’”). 2.5 The Transportation Improvement Plan (“Plan”) implementing the 2009 Measure “A” provides that its tax funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County and further provides that $970 million of the these funds are to be distributed to the cities in the Western County area for local street and road improvements (“Local Streets and Roads Funding”) in amounts based on both proportionate population and contribution to 2009 Measure “A” tax revenue. 2.6 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax (“2009 Measure ‘A’ Funds”) are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly. 2.7 The Plan implementing the 2009 Measure “A” also provides that an estimated $300 million of these funds are to be available to widen existing roads and construct new roads on the regional arterial system (“Regional Arterial Funding”). A portion of the Regional Arterial Funding will provide funding for the advance provided herein. 1 of 8 29 ATTACHMENT 2 2.8 The City has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to the City certain amounts which the City and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and allocate to the City as its share of Local Streets and Roads Funding, as allocated pursuant to the formula set forth in the Plan. 2.9 In consideration for the advance of funds referenced in Section 2.8, the city agrees to not withdraw its participation in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Western Riverside County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) programs if any amounts remain unpaid hereunder. 2.10 The funds shall be used to finance a portion of the cost of improvements to the Limonite Avenue Widening Project more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Project”). 2.11 The City agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs associated therewith described herein from Local Streets and Roads Funding and shall secure such repayment obligation by way of an acceptable security arrangement if requested by RCTC. 3. Terms. 3.1 Advance of 2009 Measure “A” Funds. A. Amount of Advance. RCTC agrees to distribute to the City, on terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Million One Hundred Sixty- Seven Thousand Dollars ($1,167,000) (the “Advance”). B. Interest. The Advance shall only accrue interest on that portion of the Advance actually distributed to the City. Once any portion of the Advance is distributed to the City, interest shall accrue from this date and said interest shall be payable by the City at a rate of ½ percent per annum over the applicable interest rate earned by RCTC on deposits held in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. The above-described ½ percent interest rate shall reimburse RCTC for the cost of administering the Advance. C. Repayment of Advance. The City shall repay the Advance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, to RCTC in monthly installments commencing the month following the final payment of the Advance to the City, amortized over the period from the date of this Agreement until June 30, 2018 (the “Maturity Date”) to be calculated by RCTC based on the amount of the Advance, with each installment due no later than the thirtieth (30th) of each month, until the Maturity Date or repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and unpaid interest, whichever is earlier. D. Early Repayment. The City shall have the right to repay the entire unpaid principal balance of the Advance, plus accrued interest, without penalty. The City intends, but is not obligated to, seek funding from alternative sources to repay Advance. Such alternative sources include eligible TUMF funds, as well as grants and appropriations as well as applicable state and federal programs. At the City’s reasonable request and to the extent possible, RCTC will cooperate in assisting the City to obtain and utilize these alternative funding sources for early repayment of Advance. 2 of 8 30 3.2 Repayment. A. Authorization to Apply Local Streets and Roads Funding to Payments; Pledge of Additional Security. For so long as any obligation of the City under this Agreement remains outstanding, the City hereby instructs RCTC to apply 65% of the City’s portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City as Local Streets and Road Funding under the 2009 Measure “A” Plan to pay any due but unpaid obligations of the City to RCTC under this Agreement. To further secure the City’s repayment obligation, the City shall, unless otherwise agreed to enter into a security arrangement if requested by RCTC (“Additional Security”). The parties acknowledge that the Advance is not a general obligation of the City, but is rather a special obligation of the City payable solely from the City’s portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City under the 2009 Measure “A”. The parties further acknowledge that the Additional Security is not a debt for purposes of the California Constitution. Consequently, neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged for repayment of the Advance or the Additional Security. B. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify the City of the calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(B) above, and any amounts then due to RCTC from the City, within thirty (30) days of RCTC’s calculation and application of such amounts. RCTC’s calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. The City shall pay to RCTC any balance due within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC of such amount. 3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following: A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement, Additional Security and such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. B. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority and power of the City to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems reasonably necessary. 3.4 City’s Representations and Warranties. The City hereby makes the following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding: A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, the Additional Security and any and all related documents (collectively “Advance Documents”) are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority. B. No Default. The City is not in default, nor is it aware of any events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default on any obligation of the City to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of the City. 3 of 8 31 C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance of the Advances Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law, statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which the City is a party or by which it or the 2009 Measure “A” Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the 2009 Measure “A” Funds by reason thereof. D. Solvency. The City is solvent and has not undertaken any actions to declare bankruptcy and does not intend to do so during the duration of the Advance. E. No Violation of RCTC Measure “A” Advance Policies. The City is not in violation of the policies of RCTC for recipients of an Advance, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” F. Litigation. There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or threatened against or affecting the City and/or relating to the Advance, or the Advance Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby, or that would materially impact the City’s ability to repay the Advance. G. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted in writing by the City to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct, and said statements truly represent the financial condition of the City as of the date thereof and the results of the operations of the City for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of business. The City has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not reflected in said statements, and the City has not entered into any special commitments or substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial condition or operations as now conducted. 3.5 City's Affirmative Covenants. The City agrees that so long as the Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC shall otherwise consent in writing: A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for the purpose and project identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. In addition, the City recognizes that under 2009 Measure “A” Plan the purpose of Local Streets and Roads Funding is to assist with the maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of the existing the City and County road system in Western Riverside County, and the City agrees that the Advance shall only be used in a manner consistent with the portions of the 2009 Measure “A” Plan related to Western County Local Streets and Road Funding. B. Records and Reports. Maintain a standard and modern system of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained and furnish RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information relating to the affairs of the City or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request from time to time. 4 of 8 32 C. Inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith. RCTC shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection. D. Notice of Default. Promptly notify RCTC in writing of the occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of Default hereunder upon giving of notice, lapse of time, or both. 3.6 City’s Negative Covenants. A. The City will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding, without RCTC’s prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on the City’s Local Share of the 2009 Measure “A” Funds other than liens in favor of RCTC. B. The City shall not withdraw its participation in the TUMF and the MSHCP programs prior to the repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and unpaid interest on the Advance. 3.7 Rights and Remedies. A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the California Commercial Code (“Code”) in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by the City. B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement between the City and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by the City shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between the City and RCTC (whether or not there are other parties in addition to the City and RCTC) shall be separate and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy. 3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at RCTC’s option, constitute an event of default (each an “Event of Default”) and the City shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof. A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to RCTC by the City or any of the City’s officers, employees or agents now or hereafter which is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; or 5 of 8 33 B. The City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement, or any agreement delivered pursuant hereto; or C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of the City; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against the City; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents the City from paying any sums owed by the City to RCTC. 3.9 Indemnification. The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend RCTC from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which arise, result from, or relate to City’s breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements, covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained herein. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement. 3.10 Procedures for Distribution of the Advance. A. Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for initial payment of all the Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Project costs, the City shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of those eligible costs described in section 3.5.A. of this Agreement. Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City, and documents evidencing the City’s payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly. B. Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from the City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Project costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the City within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the City may appeal RCTC’s decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC’s Executive Director. The City may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the full RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the procedure for the City’s submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC’s consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit “D”, attached hereto. C. Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Project audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the Advance, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Project costs, the City shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC. 3.11 Miscellaneous. A. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by the City hereunder shall be implied from any omission by RCTC to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the 6 of 8 34 waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by RCTC to or of any act by the City requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. B. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC and the City and no third person, other than a permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. C. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: RCTC: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director CITY: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Attn: City Manager Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above. D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element. F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. G. Attorney’s Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. 7 of 8 35 I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. J. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, the City will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement, and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ________________________ By: _____________________ Scott Matas, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED ATTEST: FOR APPROVAL: By: __________________________ By: ______________________ Anne Mayer, Executive Director City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: ______________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel _______________, City Attorney Riverside County Transportation Commission 8 of 8 36 Exhibit List Exhibit A Description of Project Exhibit B N/A Exhibit C Commission Policies Exhibit D Procedures for Submittal, Consideration and Payment of Invoices 37 BLANK EXHIBIT “A” DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 2009 MEASURE “A” ADVANCE PROJECT: ___________________________ [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE] A-1 38 BLANK Limonite Avenue Widening Project Description Limonite Avenue Widening from Etiwanda Avenue to Bain Street: Widening from two to five lanes, including two travel lanes in each direction with paved shoulders and left turn bays, as necessary. As used in this Agreement, ‘Work’ does not include preparation of preliminary engineering studies, preparation of environmental review documentation for the Work. right-of- way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition, condemnation proceeds, preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by City or consultants, bidding, advertising and awarding of the Work contracts. Estimated construction cost of $4,207,000 A-2 39 BLANK EXHIBIT “B” Not used 40 BLANK EXHIBIT “C” COMMISSION POLICIES 1. Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) to the RCTC in order to qualify for Measure A Streets and Roads funds. In order to be eligible to receive monthly disbursements of funding beginning at the start of a fiscal year, agencies are required to submit their CIPs to the RCTC no later than May 31st. The first year of an agency’s annual CIP update will include a list of the specific projects planned to be constructed in that year including projects in Year 1 of the current CIP which will not be under contract by June 30th of the current year. Year 1 of the CIP will also show expenditures for multi-year projects which are expected to be spent for project development work. Projects to be constructed in Years 2-5 of the CIP are to be listed along with their estimated costs. The specific year for construction may be included, if available, but is not required in the CIP. Costs for multi-year projects, excluding project development costs shown in Year 1, are to be included in the list of Year 2-5 projects. 2. Cities not participating in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) program do not qualify to receive Measure A Streets and Roads allocations (2009 Measure A). 3. Local agencies which are entitled to Measure A funding allocations must demonstrate that they continue to be committed to using their local discretionary funds for local streets and road improvement and maintenance. The local agencies must provide the RCTC with an annual certification that the Measure A funds they are allocated will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. The RCTC cannot issue funds for a new fiscal year until it has received certification of maintenance of effort from the respective agencies. Calculations supporting the MOE certification may be noted by staff as preliminary pending adoption of the annual budget and completion of the annual audit. If the audit or the budget process results in a significant modification to the MOE calculations of CIP, revisions are to be submitted to the RCTC for processing. 41 BLANK EXHIBIT “D” PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES 1. RCTC recommends that the City incorporate this Exhibit “D-1” into its contracts with any subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by contractors to the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor costs. 2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Project costs incurred during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC’s Executive Director with a copy to RCTC’s Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially si milar to that of Exhibit “D-2”. 3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the Project, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended by each contractor or Contractor for the month and for the entire Project to date. Samples of acceptable task level documentation and progress reports are attached as Exhibits “D-4” and “D-5”. All documentation from the City’s contractors should be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit “D-3”. 4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible Project costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit “D” and its attachments. 5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit “A” shall be listed separately in the invoice. 6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her designee which reads as follows: “I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors or contractors listed. Signed ________________________________ Title __________________________________ Date __________________________________ Invoice No. ____________________________ 7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, 1 42 without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid. 8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or contractor used on the Project; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC. 2 43 EXHIBIT D-1 Elements of Compensation For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Contractor compensation as set forth herein. The total compensation for this service shall not exceed (_____INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___) ($___INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT___) without written approval of the Commission’s Executive Director (“Total Compensation”). 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Contractor's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Contractor's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is _________________, and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs ____________________ 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives ____________________ The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. 1 44 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs ____________________ The Decimal Ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Contractor Firm's Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier ____________________ (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The fixed fee is $______________________. 1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE [___insert charges___] Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $ /hour Photocopies $ /copy Blueline $ /sheet LD Telephone $ /call Fax $ /sheet Photographs $ /sheet Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Contractor's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2 45 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES [___sample___] Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour Drafter/CADD Operator $ .00 - $ .00/hour Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Contractor only. All rates for subcontractors to the Contractor will be in accordance with the Contractor's cost proposal. 3. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Contractor shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The 3 46 charges for each individual assigned by the Contractor under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subcontractors or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Contractor's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed _____________________________ Title _____________________________ Date _____________________________ Invoice No. _____________________________ 4. PAYMENT 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Contractor within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Contractor has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. 4 47 EXHIBIT D-2 Sample Cover Letter to RCTC Date Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 ATTN: Accounts Payable Re: Project Title - Invoice #__ Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City’s invoice for professional and technical services that was rendered by our contractors in connection with the 2002 Measure “A” Local Streets and Roads Funding per Agreement No. ________ effective (Month/Day/Year) . The required support documentation received from each contractor is included as backup to the invoice. Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Authorized Agreement Amount: $0,000,000.00 Total Invoiced to Date: $0,000,000.00 Total Previously Invoiced: $0,000,000.00 Balance Remaining: $0,000,000.00 Amount due this Invoice: $0,000,000.00 =========== I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors listed. By: _____________________________ Name Title cc: 48 EXHIBIT D-3 Sample Letter from Contractor to City/County Month/Date/Year Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Accounts Payable Invoice #____________ For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project] This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX effective Month/Date/Year . Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Base Contract Amount: $000,000.00 Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) $000,000.00 ------------------ TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $000,000.00 Total Invoice to Date: $000,000.00 Total Previously Billed: $000,000.00 Balance Remaining: $000,000.00 Amount Due this Invoice: $000,000.00 ========== I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed, By: ____________________ Name Title 49 EXHIBIT D-4 SAMPLE TASK SUMMARY SCHEDULE 50 BLANK EXHIBIT D-5 Sample Progress Report REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year PROGRESS REPORT: #1 A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods TASK 01 – 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation 2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action Problems Corrective Action None None C. Work Planned Next Period TASK 01 – 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans 2. Responding to review comments RVPUB\DAB\688180.1 51 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8D BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year Adjustment for the City of Blythe BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the adjustment to the city of Blythe’s (Blythe) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount to $170,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. The 2009 Measure A ordinance continued the requirement for local agencies to maintain the current commitment of local discretionary expenditures toward transportation construction and maintenance activities. This requirement is to ensure Measure A funds supplement current expenditures, not supplant ongoing, local infrastructure investment. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if a local agency does not meet its respective MOE base year level in a given year, Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements will be withheld the following year. At its July 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission approved the 2009 Measure A MOE base years for each local agency. Blythe is requesting an adjustment to its base year level, as its street maintenance has been reduced during FY 2008/09 through FY 2010/11 due to the layoff of 45 percent of the street maintenance staff as a result of deficit spending. Blythe’s current 2009 Measure A MOE base year is $520,192, which also included approximately $164,000 of non-recurring or extraordinary expenditures when it was originally calculated. Blythe is requesting that the 2009 Measure A MOE base year be adjusted to $170,000, which approximates the current average annual recurring street maintenance expenditures. Staff supports Blythe’s request to adjust its 2009 Measure A MOE base year to $170,000 effective beginning in FY 2016/17, as it is consistent with the MOE guidelines and continues to uphold a basic MOE principle, which requires local jurisdictions to continue to invest in local infrastructure. Should the Commission approve this recommendation, staff will request Blythe Agenda Item 8D 52 to submit its FY 2016/17 MOE certification to reflect the adjusted amount. The annual Measure A audit process will review Blythe’s MOE expenditures to ensure the 2009 Measure A MOE base year is met. There is no financial impact to the Commission related to the adjustment of the Blythe’s 2009 Measure A MOE base year. Attachment: City of Blythe Correspondence Agenda Item 8D 53 February 4, 2016 CITY OF BLYTHE 235 North Broadway I B lythe, California 92225 Phone {760) 922-6161 I Fax (760) 922-4938 Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Ms. Trevino, Subject: Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Adjustment Request The City of Blythe's (the City) reason for this letter is to ask Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for its consideration in re-evaluating and adjusting the City's current required Maintenance of Effort (MOE). Blythe is a small community with a population of approximately 13,000 (excluding those incarcerated); that receives Measure "A" funds for the use of transportation purposes. Ordinance No. 02-001, Section VII-MOE ofRCTC, requires that agencies receiving Measure "A" funds shall maintain their existing commitment oflocal funds for street, highway and public transit purposes. While the City of Blythe has continued to make every effort to meet these requirements, it is proving more and more difficult for the City to do so. The City's 2009/2010 fiscal year was established as the MOE base year and the City's general ledger information for transportation expenditures during the base year now requires the City to spend $520,192 in local funds. After careful review, the City sees several factors they would like to point out for the consideration in adjusting the current MOE. A. The City received new management in August of2008, shortly before the base year was established at which time management determined the City was deficit spending. The City took immediate action to rectify the situation and in doing so was forced to lay off numerous employees, five of which were being funded for street maintenance. The City still today has been unable to rehire four of the five positions. The reduction in street maintenance staff has reduced the Agencies costs to maintain local roads during the recent years. B. During the base year, the City was still operating the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), in 54 which no funding had been received for several years. The fund was used to record the City's local street and highway expenditures. The City has since rectified this fund at the direction ofRCTC and all expenses now reside under the City's general fund. The expenditures for 2009/20 I 0 totaled $520,192 and are the reason the City now must spend $520,192 of local funds to receive Measure "A" funding . However, the City would like to point out that the expenditures during this time consisted of extraordinary items as noted below: Local Actual Maintenance Expenditures: Non-Recurring Contribution to Gas Tax Fund: Non-Recurring Contribution to LTF Fund: 356,465 104,709 59.018 520,192 The actual expenditures that are considered non-recurring (extraordinary) were $163,727 ofthe $520,192, making $356,465 a more realistic amount for determining the base year MOE. C. In the last several years the City has received on average approximately $900,000 in Measure "A" funds each year, but must spend $520,192 oflocal funds to continue receiving Measure "An funding. This amount equates to over 50% of the Measure "A" funding received. D. The City prepares the street maintenance budget annually allocating enough local funds to give every effort in meeting the MOE but falls short annually. In the last several year's approximately $170,000 ofthese local funds are recurring routine maintenance expenditures. The remaining $350,000 budgeted to meet the MOE are non-recurring (extraordinary) items budgeted with intent to meet MOE and prevent the City from losing Measure "A" funding. Most of these extraordinary items are capital equipment purchases or capital projects that in some cases get delayed causing the City 's actual being less than budgeted. Even with the City's attempt to place capital expenditures within the budget to meet MOE, they still fall short annually and only expend approximately $350,000, which are verifiable from Independent Accountant's Report prepared on RCTC's behalf. In closing, the City is asking that RCTC re-evaluate and adjust the current MOE amount of $520,192. Based on the information the City has provided in this letter, the City's approximate actual recurring street maintenance expenditures in recent years is $170,000. Please consider this request as this is truly a more realistic amount for the City of Blythe. Should you have any question or requests for further information, please feel free to contact me at (7 60) 922-6161 ext. 1230 or celms@cityofblythe.cagov. Sincerely, Christa Elms Interim Director of Finance 55 AGENDA ITEM 8E BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of 71/91 Interchange Utility Agreement and Preliminary Engineering Utility Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1)Approve the following agreements for final engineering and construction for utility relocations for the 71/91 interchange project in the amount of $816,435, plus a contingency of $204,109, for a total amount not to exceed $1,020,544: a)Agreement No. 16-31-068-00 with AT&T in an amount not to exceed $18,162; b)Agreement No. 16-31-069-00 with AT&T (Prado) in an amount not to exceed $21,503; c)Agreement No. 16-31-070-00 with the city of Corona in an amount not to exceed $170,175; d)Agreement No. 16-31-071-00 with Southern California Edison (SCE) in an amount not to exceed $528,698; and e)Agreement No. 16-31-072-00 with Sprint in an amount not to exceed $77,897; 2)Approve Agreement No. 16-31-073-00 with Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for preliminary engineering for a utility relocation for the project in the amount of $335,999, plus a contingency amount of $84,000, for a total amount not to exceed $419,999; 3)Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 4)Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for these utility relocation agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in cooperation with Caltrans, proposes to improve the existing 71/91 interchange in the city of Corona, Riverside County, California. The proposed improvements include constructing a new direct freeway connector ramp from eastbound SR-91 to northbound SR-71 and reconfiguring the eastbound SR-91 ramp between Green River Road and Agenda Item 8E 56 the 71/91 interchange. The proposed project is anticipated to improve mobility on SR-71 and SR-91 by enhancing operations and capacity at the 71/91 interchange. The project will require the Commission enter into final engineering and construction utility agreements with AT&T, SCE, Sprint, and the city of Corona to relocate underground and overhead telecommunications facilities, underground and overhead electrical facilities, and underground water pipelines. Additionally, a preliminary engineering utility agreement with SoCalGas is required to cover those costs associated with the final design of the underground natural gas transmission pipeline scheduled for relocation during the project construction phase. As a part of establishing liability for the cost of the utility relocations, a prior rights check is performed by the utility owner and verified by the Commission’s utility coordinator. The utility facilities will be relocated both prior to and concurrently with construction activities. Those utility facilities subject to the terms of the Caltrans master contract will generally be relocated at a 50/50 proration, excepting those installed pursuant to an encroachment permit (100 percent owner) or an easement (100 percent Commission). The estimated cost for the Commission’s share of the engineering effort required to develop the utility relocation plans for the project is $1,152,434, as summarized in the following table. Utility Number of Relocations Estimated Total Costs Estimated Utility Cost Share Estimated RCTC Cost Share Final Engineering: AT&T 1 $ 18,162 $ 0 $ 18,162 AT&T (Prado) 1 43,006 21,503 21,503 Corona 1 170,175 0 170,175 SCE 2 816,798 288,100 528,698 Sprint 1 77,897 0 77,897 Subtotal 1,126,038 309,603 816,435 Preliminary Engineering: SoCalGas 1 335,999 0 335,999 TOTAL $ 1,462,037 $ 309,603 $ 1,152,434 The Commission’s share of the costs will be funded by federal earmark funds. Staff recommends the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the utility relocation agreements on behalf of the Commission. The utility relocation and engineering costs related to these agreements will be included in the FY 2016/17 budget. Agenda Item 8E 57 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $1,152,434 Source of Funds: Federal Earmarks Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003021 81402 00068 0000 262 31 81402 $1,152,434 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/10/2016 Attachment: Utility Agreement No. 16-31-071-00 with SCE (representative form of utility agreements) Agenda Item 8E 58 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page 1 of 6 UTILITY AGREEMENT (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) DISTRICT 08 COUNTY RIV ROUTE 91/71 POST MILE RIV-91-R0.9/R2.6; RIV-71-1.9/R3.0 EA 0F541 FEDERAL AID NUMBER 6054 (066) OWNER’S FILE NUMBER W.O. TD758101 & W.O. TD758739 FEDERAL PARTICIPATION On the project YES NO On the Utilities YES NO UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 23277 DATE ___ _______________ The Riverside County Transportation Commission, herein after called “RCTC”, proposes to improve the existing SR 91/SR 71 interchange in the City of Corona, Riverside County. The proposed improvements include constructing a new direct flyover connector from eastbound SR 91 to northbound SR 71 and reconfiguring the eastbound SR 91 ramp between Green River Road and the SR 91/71 interchange. and Southern California Edison hereinafter called "OWNER," owns and maintains underground and overhead electric facilities along Prado Road and across SR 71 within the limits of RCTC’s project which requires relocation of overhead electric facilities along Prado Road and across SR 71 to accommodate RCTC’s project It is hereby mutually agreed that: I. WORK TO BE DONE In accordance with Notice to Owner No. 23277 dated December 18, 2015 OWNER shall relocate the overhead electric facilities along Prado Road and across SR 71. All work shall be performed substantially in accordance with OWNER’s Plan No. 0532846C dated September 3, 2015 consisting of 2 sheets and Plan No. 0533291 dated October 5, 2015 consisting of 2 sheets, a copy of which is on file at RCTC. Deviations from the OWNER’s plan described above initiated by either RCTC or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised Notice to Owner. Such Revised Notices to Owner, approved by RCTC and agreed to/acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an approved revision of the OWNER’s plan described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said deviation shall commence prior to written execution by the OWNER of the Revised Notice to Owner. Changes in the scope of the work will require an amendment to this Agreement in addition to the revised Notice to Owner. II. LIABILITY FOR WORK The existing facilities described in Section I above will be relocated at 71.43% RCTC expense and 28.57% OWNER expense in accordance with Section 5(A) and Section 5(C) of the Master Contract dated November 1, 2004 in accordance with the following proration: 59 UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 2 of 6 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) RCTC requires OWNER to relocate 7 distribution poles for the project. OWNER has 1 pole installed by Easement outside of RCTC/State right of way. OWNER pays 0% of this portion per Master Contract section 5(A). OWNER has 2 poles installed by License Agreement inside RCTC/State easement. OWNER pays 0% of this portion per Master Contract Section 5(A). OWNER has 4 poles installed by Franchise outside of RCTC/State right of way. OWNER pays 50% of this portion per Master Contract section 5(C). 7 poles = 100% of the relocation. 1 pole = 14.29% of total pole relocation. OW NER owes 0% (zero) of this portion of the cost of relocation. 0% (zero) of 14.29% = 0% 2 poles = 28.57% of total pole relocation. OWNER owes 0% (zero) of this portion of the cost of relocation. 0% (zero) of 28.57% = 0% 4 poles = 57.14% of total pole relocation. OWNER owes 50% (half) of this portion of the cost of relocation. 50% (half) of 57.14% = 28.57% 0% + 0% + 28.57% = 28.57%. So, OWNER owes 28.57% of the total cost of relocation. RCTC is responsible for 71.43% of the total cost of relocation. III PERFORMANCE OF WORK OWNER agrees to perform the herein described work with its own forces or to cause the herein described work to be performed by the OWNER’s contractor, employed by written contract on a continuing basis to perform work of this type, and to provide and furnish all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion. OWNER agrees to cause the herein described work to be performed by a contract with the lowest qualified bidder, selected pursuant to a valid competitive bidding procedure, and to furnish or cause to be furnished all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion. Use of out-of-state personnel (or personnel requiring lodging and meal “per diem” expenses) will not be allowed without prior written authorization by RCTC’s representative. Requests for such authorization must be contained in OWNER’s estimate of actual and necessary relocation costs. OWNER shall include an explanation why local employee or contract labor is not considered adequate for the relocation work proposed. Per Diem expenses shall not exceed the per diem expense amounts allowed under the State’s Department of Personnel Administration travel expense guidelines. Work performed directly by Owner’s employees falls within the exception of Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1) and does not constitute a public work under Section 1720(a)(2) and is 60 UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 3 of 6 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) not subject to prevailing wages. OWNER shall verify compliance with this requirement in the administration of its contracts referenced above. Engineering services for locating, making of surveys, preparation of plans, specifications, estimates, supervision, and inspection are to be furnished by the Utility Owner and approved by RCTC. Cost principles for determining the reasonableness and allowability of OWNER’s costs shall be determined in accordance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31; 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645; and 18 CFR, Chapter 1, Parts 101, 201 and OMB Circular A-87, as applicable. IV PAYMENT FOR WORK RCTC shall pay its share of the actual and necessary cost of the herein described work within 45 days after receipt of five (5) copies of OWNER’s itemized bill, signed by a responsible official of OWNER’s organization and prepared on OWNER’s letterhead, compiled on the basis of the actual and necessary cost and expense incurred and charged or allocated to said work in accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed for OWNER by the California Public Utilities Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Federal Communications Commission, whichever is applicable. It is understood and agreed that RCTC will not pay for any betterment or increase in capacity of OWNER’s facilities in the new location and that OWNER shall give credit to RCTC for the “used life” or accumulated depreciation of the replaced facilities and for the salvage value of any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold by OWNER. Not more frequently than once a month, but at least quarterly, OWNER will prepare and submit itemized progress bills for costs incurred not to exceed OWNER’s recorded costs as of the billing date less estimated credits applicable to completed work. Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made under the terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after receipt and approval by RCTC of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an Amendment to this Agreement has been executed by the parties to this Agreement. The OWNER shall submit a final bill to RCTC within 360 days after the completion of the work described in Section I above. If RCTC has not received a final bill within 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER’s work described in Section I of this Agreement, and RCTC has delivered to OWNER fully executed Director’s Deeds, Consents to Common Use or Joint Use Agreements, if required for OWNER’s facilities, RCTC will provide written notification to OWNER of its intent to close its file within 30 days and OWNER hereby acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be deemed to have been abandoned. If RCTC processes a final bill for payment more than 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER’s work, payment of the late bill may be subject to allocation and/or approval by RCTC. The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged to the project, less the credits provided for in this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by progress billings. However, RCTC shall not pay final bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without documentation of the reason for the increase of said cost from the OWNER and approval of documentation by RCTC. Except, if the final bill exceeds 61 UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 4 of 6 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) the OWNER’s estimated costs solely as the result of a revised Notice to Owner as provided for in Section I, a copy of said revised Notice to Owner shall suffice as documentation. In either case, payment of the amount over the estimated cost of this Agreement may be subject to allocation and/or approval by RCTC. In any event if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this Agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be executed by the parties to this Agreement prior to the payment of the OWNER’S final bill. Any and all increases in costs that are the direct result of deviations from the work described in Section I of this Agreement, shall have the prior concurrence of RCTC. Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the OWNER for a period of three years from the date of the final payment and will be available for audit by RCTC, State and/or Federal auditors. Owner agrees to comply with Contract Cost Principles and Procedures as set forth in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645, 2 CFR Part 200 et al., to the extent they are applicable. If a subsequent RCTC, State and/or Federal audit determines payments to be unallowable, OWNER agrees to reimburse RCTC upon receipt of RCTC’s billing. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of RCTC’s request of September 4, 2013 to review, study and/or prepare relocation plans and estimates for the project associated with this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If RCTC’s project which precipitated this Agreement is canceled or modified so as to eliminate the necessity of work by OWNER, RCTC will notify OWNER in writing and RCTC reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and conditions for terminating the Agreement. OWNER shall submit a Notice of Completion to RCTC within 30 days of the completion of the work described herein. It is understood that said highway is a Federal aid highway and accordingly, 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645 is hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference; provided, however, that the provisions of any agreements entered into between RCTC and the OWNER pursuant to State law for apportioning the obligations and costs to be borne by each, or the use of accounting procedures prescribed by the applicable Federal or State regulatory body and approved by the Federal Highway Administration, shall govern in lieu of the requirements of said 23 CFR 645. In addition, the provisions of 23 CFR 635.410, Buy America, are also incorporated into this agreement. The Buy America requirements are further specified in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), section 1518; 23 CFR 635.410 requires that all manufacturing processes have occurred in the United States for steel and iron products (including the application of coatings) installed on a project receiving funding from the FHWA. OWNER understands and acknowledges that this project is subject to the requirements of the Buy America law (23 U.S.C., Section 313) and applicable regulations, including 23 CFR 62 UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 5 of 6 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) 635.410 and FHWA guidance. OWNER hereby certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, for products where Buy America requirements apply, it shall use only such products for which it has received a certification from its supplier, or provider of construction services that procures the product certifying Buy America compliance. This does not include products for which waivers have been granted under 23 CFR 635.410 or other applicable provisions or excluded material cited in the Department’s guidelines for the implementation of Buy America requirements for utility relocations issued on December 3, 2013. THE ESTIMATED COST TO RCTC FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $528,698. 63 UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 6 of 6 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010) (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 16-31-071-00) SIGNATURE PAGE TO UTILITY AGREEMENT NUMBER 23277 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OWNER: COMMISSION Southern California Edison By By ANNE MAYER Date Name Date Executive Director Title APPROVAL AS TO FORM: BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP By Name Date General Counsel APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: By Nicole Deluca Date Utility Coordinator Parsons 64 AGENDA ITEM 9 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program Revision Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As previously reported, at the January 2016 California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) meeting the 2016 STIP Fund Estimate was revised to reflect the adjustment to the gasoline excise tax. This adjustment, which is statutorily required each year by the State Board of Equalization, decreased the STIP Fund Estimate by $754 million. As a result, each region was required to revise its 2016 STIP submittal and remove projects and/or decrease funding. CTC staff provided the regions with a fair share target of the reduction with Riverside County’s share identified at $32 million. At the February 22 Budget and Implementation Committee and the March 9 Commission meetings, staff presented its recommendation to reduce construction funding on the I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange project from $47.6 million to $15,356,000, and forwarded this revision to the CTC. At the March 16-17 CTC meeting, CTC staff indicated the regions submitted a total of approximately $550 million in reductions. CTC staff also commented that the CTC was continuing to work with the regions to identify the additional $200 million needed in reductions. The Southern California 2016 STIP hearings were also held on March 17, 2016. The STIP hearings provide the regions the opportunity to highlight respective STIP submittals (how the projects meet local, regional, and state goals for improving the transportation system and SB 375 greenhouse gas reduction targets) to the CTC. Caltrans also presented the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), which accounts for 25 percent of STIP funding, reduction recommendations. There were no recommended reductions in ITIP programming in Riverside County. Agenda Item 9 65 At this time, the results of the $754 million reduction in 2016 STIP funding are not finalized. However, staff will immediately inform the Commission if any additional reductions are made to Riverside County projects by the CTC. The adoption of the 2016 STIP is currently scheduled for the May 18-19, 2016 CTC meeting. Agenda Item 9 66 AGENDA ITEM 10 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1569 (Steinorth) – Support; b) SB 1197 (Cannella) – Support; c) AB 2783 (E. Garcia) – Support in Concept, Seek Amendments; and d) SB 901 (Bates) – Support in Concept. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update AB 1569 (Steinorth) – Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT This bill provides an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or removal of transportation projects, such as highways, roads, bridges, culverts, tunnels, transit systems, bike, and walkways. Auxiliary lane additions also qualify for the exemption if it is within existing right of way and the areas surrounding the right of way are returned to their original condition after the project is complete. Although these projects are exempted from CEQA, the project sponsor must still notify public agencies with authority over the project and comply with any local laws. These projects are not exempted from the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal laws. AB 1569 is narrowly written and applies to projects in existing rights of way, thereby limiting the potential environmental and public impacts. Moreover, the types of projects exempted allow for public safety to be better maintained by ensuring necessary inspection, repair, and maintenance take place without delay. This bill is consistent with the Commission’s legislative Agenda Item 10 67 platform, which encourages modernization of CEQA to reduce the costs and delays of transportation infrastructure projects. SB 1197 (Cannella) – Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT This bill allows for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service beyond the boundaries of three existing joint powers authorities (JPAs) that currently operate intercity rail service. Current law establishes the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) JPA and authorizes the state to contract with the JPA to operate the popular Pacific Surfliner Amtrak route. The Commission is a member agency of the LOSSAN JPA. This bill would provide the opportunity for the future Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass intercity rail corridor to be operated by LOSSAN. While the governance of the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor service has not been fully vetted at this point in time, SB 1197 creates an opportunity that could be utilized in the future if it is determined by the Commission and the other LOSSAN member agencies it is best to incorporate the new corridor into the existing JPA, rather than creating a new agency or allowing Caltrans Division of Rail to operate this rail service. The bill is authored by Members of the Legislature from Central and Northern California who are seeking to expand the reach of intercity rail in that part of the state. Staff believes this bill has potential future benefits to Inland Southern California as well. AB 2783 (E. Garcia) – Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IN CONCEPT, SEEK AMENDMENTS This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to amend the guidelines for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. The AHSC program is funded from Greenhouse Gas Reduction funds, otherwise known as cap and trade. AB 2783 allows projects in rural areas to meet lower housing density thresholds more consistent with rural development patterns. Current guidelines place rural areas of Riverside County at a competitive disadvantage for AHSC funding since Riverside County and the cities surrounding local rural areas are considered urban or suburban by the current program guidelines. Urban and suburban areas are required to have housing densities higher than what the market will typically support in a rural area. The Commission and several other agencies in the Inland Empire and throughout California have commented to the SGC about this issue in the AHSC guidelines. Therefore, this provision of AB 2783 is consistent with the Commission’s previous publicly articulated position. The Commission also sought changes to how high quality transit is defined by SGC, which eliminates consideration of all transit infrastructure in Riverside County (including Commuter Rail stations and bus routes) for transit oriented development funding from the AHSC program. The Commission also sought a process for ensuring regional equity in the distribution of AHSC funding. Staff recommends seeking amendments to AB 2783 to include items such as the above to ensure the AHSC program is more accessible to Inland Empire communities. Nonetheless, the bill takes a significant step as-is towards increasing competitiveness for infrastructure and housing funding in some of Riverside County’s most disadvantaged communities. Agenda Item 10 68 AHSC is one of the three major programs that provide funding to implement the Sustainability Communities Strategies mandated by the state via SB 375 (Steinberg). The intent of these programs is to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board pursuant to AB 32, California’s legislation to combat climate change. The stated objective of these funding programs is to ensure communities and the infrastructure that support these programs are planned in a sustainable fashion as the County’s population inevitably grows. The Inland Empire is identified by the state as one of the regions expected to grow the most in the coming decades compared to other regions, yet the strategic growth funding to assist the Inland Empire is unlikely to materialize without an adjustment of current policy. AB 2783 takes a step towards correcting that. Additional efforts in the Legislature and with the Administration will be necessary. SB 901 (Bates) – Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IN CONCEPT This bill creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans to account for the future impacts on the environment from transportation projects. This concept is similar to Riverside County’s Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the California Transportation Commission’s annual report recommendations to the Legislature. SB 901 is similar to AB 1833 (Linder), which the Commission took action to support in March 2016, and is consistent with the Commission’s legislative platform, which encourages policies that expedite projects and reduce costs. SB 901 is slightly different in that it calls for $30 million to be taken from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and State Highway Operations Preservation and Protection (SHOPP) program to pay for the advanced mitigation program. Given the dire condition of the STIP and SHOPP due to declining fuel tax revenues, and the consequences it is having on transportation projects in Riverside County, staff believes this portion of the bill may need to be reevaluated. Nonetheless, the concept of the bill is in alignment with the Commission’s goals. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 10 69 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – April 2016 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 4 (Linder) This bill would bring truck weight fees back to transportation accounts and would prohibit weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds, and would also prohibit loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund. Died pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. (January 1, 2016) SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 194 (Frazier) This bill provides a uniform, less-political process for tolling projects to be reviewed and approved by the state. Today, each tolling project must be approved via a bill in the Legislature. AB 194 provides the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with the authority to review and approve tolling projects, subject to specified conditions that provide for public transparency and collaboration between state and regional governments. The most important aspect of this bill is it rests decision-making authority over tolling projects with the governmental entity financially responsible for the project. The bill is sponsored by the Self-Help Counties Coalition, of which the Commission is a member. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 687, Statutes of 2015. (October 9, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 218 (Melendez) This bill allows for the relinquishment from state to local control of State Route 74 in the area between the cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris. This bill is sponsored by the county of Riverside and is championed by First District Supervisor and Commissioner Kevin Jeffries. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 553, Statutes of 2015. (October 7, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 914 (Brown) AB 914 authorizes San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to implement tolling on Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 within the County of San Bernardino. The bill contains language that requires cooperative agreements between SANBAG and the Commission prior to construction commencing on SANBAG’s I-15 project. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 702, Statutes of 2015. (October 9, 2015). SUPPORT 4/08/15 70 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1171 (Linder) This bill authorizes the widespread use of an alternative contracting method known as construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) for projects not on the state highway system. Like design-build, CM/GC offers a streamlined private sector risk-transfer in project delivery that is capable of saving time and money on complex transportation projects. In short, CM/GC allows a project sponsor (such as the Commission) to enter into a preconstruction contract with a private entity to provide services that assist in preparing a design and schedule for the project, while reserving the option to allow that contractor to bid on the actual construction of the project. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 413, Statutes of 2015. (October 1, 2015). SUPPORT 4/08/15 AB 1569 (Steinorth) This bill provides an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or removal of transportation projects, such as highways, roads, bridges, culverts, tunnels, transit systems, bike, and walkways. Auxiliary lane additions also qualify for the exemption if it is within existing right of way and the areas surrounding the right of way are returned to their original condition after the project is complete. Although these projects are exempted from CEQA, the project sponsor must still notify public agencies with authority over the project and comply with any local laws. These projects are not exempted from the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal laws. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (March 7, 2016). SUPPORT Pending AB 1780 (Medina) This bill, beginning in the 2016–17 fiscal year, would continuously appropriate 25 percent of the annual proceeds of the fund to the California Transportation Commission for the Sustainable Trade Corridors Program, which the bill would establish, thereby making an appropriation. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (March 10, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 AB 1833 (Linder) This bill seeks three distinct policies that would create greater efficiencies in delivering transportation projects: Create an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans similar in concept to Riverside County’s Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; remove the sunset date on California’s participation in the federal program that allows the State to assume responsibility for review of federal environmental documents; and authorizes the State to participate in the new pilot program that allows States to substitute state environmental laws, such as the CEQA in lieu of NEPA. Referred to Com. On Trans. And Nat. Res. (February 25, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 71 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1943 (Linder) This bill provides technical amendments to a previous bill sponsored by the Commission in 2014, SB 953 (Roth) providing the Commission with authority to establish parking regulations at its rail stations. Legislature edits to the bill’s language prevented the Commission from enforcing parking regulations. AB 1943 clarifies the law with its amendments and provides the Commission with the power to establish and enforce its rules. The bill also allows the Commission to use a third-party private party to cite and tow violators. Referred to Com. On Trans. (February 25, 2016). SPONSOR 3/09/16 AB 2014 (Melendez) This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in coordination with the Department of Transportation and in consultation with regional and local entities, to complete a workload study to assess resource needs to supervise existing and expanded freeway service patrols identified by regional and local entities and to submit the study to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget. The bill would also require the departments to prepare their annual budget requests to the Legislature to accommodate the Department of the California Highway Patrol’s oversight of increased freeway service patrols identified in the study. Referred to Com. on TRANS. (February 29, 2016). SPONSOR 3/09/16 AB 2170 (Frazier) This bill is similar to AB 1780 (Medina) in that it directs new sources of funding to the successful TCIF program. AB 2170 directs federal formula funding for goods movement into the TCIF program. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, approved by Congress in 2015, creates a new formula funding program for freight projects. The funds are apportioned to the states. This bill ensures that funding is distributed equitably throughout the state where regional governments such as the Commission will have a voice at the table. Referred to Com. on TRANS. (February 29, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 AB 2452 (Quirk) This bill proposes a helpful reform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would limit the exposure of transportation projects to delays and costly litigation. AB 2452 by East Bay Assemblyman Bill Quirk would prohibit a judge from stopping the construction or implementation of a transportation project on solely on the basis of the project’s potential contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and JUD. (March 8, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 72 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 2783 (E. Garcia) This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to amend the guidelines for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. The AHSC program is funded from Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF), otherwise known as cap and trade. AB 2783 allows projects in rural areas to meet lower housing density thresholds more consistent with rural development patterns. Current guidelines place rural areas of Riverside County at a competitive disadvantage for AHSC funding because Riverside County and the cities surrounding local rural areas are considered urban or suburban by the current program guidelines. Urban and suburban areas are required to have housing densities higher than what the market will typically support in a rural area. Referred to Com. on H. & C.D. (March 10, 2016). SUPPORT IN CONCEPT, SEEK AMENDMENTS Pending SB 39 (Pavley) This bill raises the maximum number of green stickers issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which allow those vehicles to travel in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes regardless of the number of occupants. SB 39 raises the cap to 85,000. . This bill represents a 112 percent increase in green stickers over a two-year period. The green sticker program expires on January 1, 2019. Referred to Com. On TRANS. (May 22, 2015). OPPOSE 6/10/15 SB 321 (Beall) This bill allows the BOE to adjust the price-based excise tax using a five-year forecast period instead of just a one-year period, thereby reducing the impact of short-term disruptions in fuel prices. SB 321 also extends the revenue- neutrality requirement to cover a three-year period instead of just one year, offering another opportunity for the BOE to smooth-out dramatic revenue swings. Finally, the bill allows the BOE to adjust the price-based excise tax every quarter, rather than once per year. Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Beall. (September 11, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 SB 901 (Bates) This bill creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans to account for the future impacts on the environment from transportation projects. This concept is similar to Riverside County’s Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the California Transportation Commission’s annual report recommendations to the Legislature. SB 901 is similar to AB 1833 (Linder), which the Commission took action to support in March 2016, and is consistent with the Commission’s legislative platform which encourages policies that expedite projects and reduce costs. SB 901 is slightly different in that it calls for $30 million to be taken from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and State Highway Operations Preservation and Protection (SHOPP) program to pay for the advanced mitigation program. Set for hearing March 29. (March 10, 2016). Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and E.Q. (Feb. 4, 2016). SUPPORT Pending 73 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 1197 (Cannella) This bill allows for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service beyond the boundaries of the three existing joint powers authorities (JPAs) that operate intercity rail service today. Current law establishes the Los Angeles-San Diego- San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) JPA and authorizes the state to contract with the JPA to operate the popular Pacific Surfliner Amtrak route. The Commission is a member agency of the LOSSAN JPA. This bill would provide the opportunity for the future Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass intercity rail corridor to be operated by LOSSAN. While the governance of the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass service has not been fully vetted at this point in time, SB 1197 creates an opportunity that could be utilized in the future if it is determined by the Commission and the other LOSSAN member agencies it is best to incorporate the new corridor into the existing JPA, rather than creating a new agency or allowing Caltrans Division of Rail to operate the service. Referred to Com. on T. & H. (March 3, 2016). SUPPORT Pending H.R. 2497 (Denham) H.R. 2497 creates a program to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that eliminates duplicative environmental reviews and approvals of transportation projects under state and federal laws. Importantly, the bill sets a 90-day deadline for the Secretary to render a decision on applications for the program. Referred to House subcommittee on Highway and Transit. (May 22, 2015). Referred to House subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (May 22, 2015). SUPPORT 9/9/15 H.R. 4441 Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), known as the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 34 - 25. (February 11, 2016). SEEK AMENDMENTS 3/09/16 74 Legislative Update April 13, 2016 Sponsored Bills Bill Description Status AB 1780 (Medina)Devotes 25 percent of cap-and-trade revenue to trade corridors Passed Assembly Trans.Committee AB 1943 (Linder)Clarifies RCTC Metrolink station parking enforcement authority Passed Assembly Trans.Committee AB 2014 (Melendez)Increases transparency and provides mechanism for achieving increased funding* to Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Passed Assembly Trans.Committee *Parallel effort to increase FSP funding in FY 2016/17 State Budget,which has remained flat since 2006. Proposed Bill Positions Bill Description Position (Recommended) AB 1569 (Steinorth)CEQA exemption for inspection, maintenance,repair,rehab,or removal of transportation facilities within existing right of way. Support SB 1197 (Cannella)Allows intercity rail joint-powers authorities to expand their boundaries by a vote of the JPA board and approval of Secretary of Transportation. Support AB 2783 (E. Garcia)Requires the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to amend guidelines for Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC)cap-and- trade program. Support in Concept, Seek Amendments SB 901 (Bates)Creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans and provides $30 million of STIP funds annually to support it. Support in Concept Questions?