HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 21, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00102
RCTC Meeting Agenda
June 2, 1999
Page 2
6C. STATE AND FEDERAL UPDATE Page 78
Approve the staff recommended bill positions.as indicated and receive and file the
Legislative Update.
6D. EVALUATION/SAVINGS OF RCTC/SANBAG DUE TO SHARED DIRECTOR OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Page 41
Approve continuation of the shared position.
6E. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE PEDLEY STATION SECURITY SYSTEM
DESIGN Page 45
Direct staff to reject the proposals received and reissue the RFP.
6F. NOTICE OF INTENT (N01) TO START THE PROCESS TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (TCE'S) BY EMINENT DOMAIN REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98 ALONG AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON STREET & MONROE STREET IN THE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 47
The Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for construction of Sound
Wall #98. The project was advertised on May 22 and bids are due on June 17,
1999. Anticipated start date is early September 1999.
6G. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT NO. RO-9970 TO PRODUCE A
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUTURE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10
AND SR-60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215 Page 51
To award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a Feasibility Study for
future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for
the amount of $99,867. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used and
reviewed by Legal Counsel.
6H. SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDMENT #10 TO AGREEMENT RO 9337 WITH THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR STATE ROUTE
74 SHOPP PROJECTS Page 66
Approve $195,610 for the County of Riverside to acquire the 40 additional SHOPP
project parcels.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
June 2, 1999
Page 3
61. RESOLUTION NO. 99-005, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE A FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE
PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" Page 69
To approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Amending guidelines for the Administration of the
Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter
Assistance Program."
6J. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 99/00 COMMUTER
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT Page 78
To: 1) approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue implementation and
management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for FY 99/00; 2)
authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
and 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program
consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant to perform the work.
6K. FY 99/00 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL
RIDESHARE CORE SERVICES Page 83
To: 1) approve the Southern California Rideshare FY99/00 Riverside Regional
Rideshare Services Work Program, 2) authorize the expenditure of Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141 pursuant to
adoption of_RCTC's FY99/00 budget, and 3) pursuant to legal counsel review and
approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with SCR.
6L. FY 99/00 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING
CONTINUATION REQUESTS. Page 95 '
To approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool
Subsidy Policy: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1999 to June
30, 2000 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno
Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written
request for a subsidy support; and 2) continuation of the existing monthly and
semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly
subsidy payments.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
June 2, 1999
Page 4
6M. MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 103
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee 1) approve the FY
1999-2000 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.35%
for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.56% for the SunLine Transit Agency;.2)
reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) request
Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 1999-2000.
6N. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR OPERATIONAL
AND STATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE
METROLINK STATION Page 107
Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids.
60. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR CALL BOX SUPPORT SERVICES
Page 110
Award contract for call box support services to TeleTran Tek Services in the
amount of $62,924 for fiscal year 1999-20000 along with four (4) one-year
options to renew.
6P. MONTHLY COST & SCHEDULE REPORTS Page 112
Receive and file
6Q. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE
Receive and file
6R. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS
Receive and file
6S. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Receive and file
6T. GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD
Receive and file
Page 116
Page 124
Page 133
Page 135
RCTC Meeting Agenda
June 2, 1999
Page 5
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7A. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY ENDING JUNE 2000
Approve Proposed Budget - FY Ending June 2000
8. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
5 Minutes Page 137
10 Minutes Page 157
Approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning,
Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit Agency as presented.
9. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PILOT PROJECT EVALUATION
10 Minutes Page 160
Approve the requested allocation of $500,000 of State Transportation Improvement
Program funds for the purchase of additional "Smart" Call Boxes on the Congestion
Management Program network. A short presentation on the Pilot Project will be made
by VRPA Technologies.
10. TEA 21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAM 2 Minutes
Page 177
Approve TEA 21 STP for FY 99/00 - 02/03.
11. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ANALYSIS FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 10 Minutes
Page 179
Approve the Western Riverside County Specialized Transit Strategic Plan as presented
in the attached report. A presentation on the analysis completed will be made by the
consultant's team, AMMA.
12. FINDINGS REGARDING MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATED BY
FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
5 Minutes Page 196
Approval of the suggested improvements for Family Services' Measure A supported
service in the Jurupa area.
13. PRESENTATION
13A. STATUS - CETAP ACTIVITIES 10 Minutes
An oral presentation will be made by Mel Placilla of Sverdrup on CETAP activities.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
June 2, 1999
Page 6
14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT.
15. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
16. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be
held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in Corona.
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
MINUTES
May 12, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission to order at 10:00 a.m. at the Hemet Neighborhood Center, 205 E. Devonshire
Avenue, Hemet, California 92543.
Commissioners/Aitemates Present
Stan Barnes
Gene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
John M. Chlebnik
Alex Clifford
Frank Hall
John Hunt
Dick Kelly
Jan Leja*
Stan Lisiewicz
Tom Mullen
Kevin W. Pape
John J. Pena
Gregory S. Pettis
Robin Reeser Lowe
Ron Roberts
Doug Sherman*
Chris B. Silva
John F. Tavaglione
Jack van Haaster
James A. Venable
Frank West
Roy Wilson •
Donald F. Yokaitis*
* Arrived after start of meeting
2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS
A roundtable self introductions followed.
Commissioners Absent
Robert Crain
Juan M. DeLara
Al Landers
Andrea M. Puga
Jim Smedley
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 2
3. WELCOME REMARKS BY HEMET MAYOR LYLE ALBERG.
On behalf of the Hemet City Council, Mayor Alberg welcomed the Commission to Hemet.
Meeting in Hemet will provide the Commissioners the opportunity for a first hand look at
the needs of the area. They are looking to the Commission to again come forward with
a program that will meet the changing needs of the County which currently undergoing
great change. He noted that a shift in the population demographics has occurred and that
there are more people using the road system. In addition to the population change, the
Eastside Reservoir will have a large impact on the road system leading to the valley.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Garry A. Grant, 27068 Jarva Street, Perris, presented testimony in opposition of
extension of Measure "A".
B. Chairman van Haaster called the Commissioners attention to a Press Release that
had been distributed that Moody's has announced an upgrade on RCTC's bonds
from Al to AA3; junior bonds have been upgraded from A2 to Al . Last quarter,
he, Eric Haley and Dean Martin made a trip to New York and made a presentation
on RCTC's financials and new structure. This plays well into the next possible
measure because it shows the confidence in the investment community in RCTC's
ability to handle its funds. He then commended Dean Martin, Chief Financial
Officer, for job well done.
5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 14, 1999 and April 26, 1999
M/SIC- (Buster/Silva) approve the minutes of the April 14, 1999, and April 26,
1999, meetings as submitted.
Abstained 4/14/99 Minutes: Mullen, van Haaster
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
•
1. Eric Haley requested the addition of SCA 3 (Burton) Amendment and the State
Infrastructure Loan, as latebreaking items as they arose after the agenda was
posted.
M/S/C (Leja/Chlebnik) to add the SCA 3 (Burton) Amendment and State
Infrastructure Loan to the agenda as late breaking items that arose after the agenda
was posted.
2. It was requested that Agenda Item No. 763, "State and Federal Legislative
Update", be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 3
7. CONSENT CALENDAR.
M/S/C (Mullen/Kelly) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the
exception of Agenda Item 763 - State and Federal Legislative:
7A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS
7A1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING
CALTRANS STIP FUNDING TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION
CONCURRENCE
Approve Resolution No. 99-04 requiring local agencies seeking STIP funding
allocations to obtain prior Commission concurrence.
7A2. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY
Authorize staff to: 1) Approve the award of contract to Strategic Consulting
& Research for an amount not to exceed $17,961 from the FY 98/99
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Budget to perform a study
pursuant to the proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of
Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride
Programs; (Note: As part of this study, SANBAG's Option Rideshare in
County and Out of County Programs will also be evaluated at SANBAG's
expense); and 2) Execute the contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review,
on behalf of the Commission.
76. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
7131. ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS AND
AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK CONSTRUCTION BIDS
1) Approve Construction Contribution Agreement No. 8-1097 with the State
for Construction of Sound Wall #98 on Route 91, between Jackson and
Monroe; and, 2) Authorize staff to Advertise for Constructions Bids for SW
#98.
762. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE AND SECURITY
ENHANCEMENTS AT THE EXISTING LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS
1) Authorize the reprogramming of CMAQ funds and Local Match funds as
noted in the staff memorandum; and, 2) Award Contract No. RO-9932 to
construct the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures
and Security Systems, to Mallcraft Inc., for the amount of $3,459,000, with
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 4
a 10% contingency of $341,000 to cover RCTC shared flagging costs and
potential change orders encountered during construction. The award is
contingent on the recertification of. WC Brown as a Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise.
764. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF
MURRIETA AND TEMECULA
Grant extensions to the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula to complete their
respective SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities projects.
765. .ROUTE 74 - 1-15 TO 7T" STREET, AMENDMENT #10 WITH COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE AND AMENDMENT #1 WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR FINAL
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OF RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES
Authorize: 1) A new Amendment #10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the
County of Riverside at an estimated cost of $400,000; and, 2) Amendment
#1 to SC Engineering Contract (RO 9954) for a total amount of $2,662,915.
7B6. SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
Select Ernst & Young as the Commission's independent auditors.
7B7. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS
Receive and file.
768. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1999
Receive and file.
769. UCLA FALL 1999 ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP
Approve co -sponsoring the annual UCLA Symposium, "The Transportation,
Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for October 24-26, 1999 at
the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center in the amount of $5,000.
7B10. CITY OF HEMET'S REQUEST FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT
That the Property Development Subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners •
Alex Clifford, Juan DeLara, John Hunt, Jim Smedley, John Tavaglione and
Jim Venable review the request and bring back a recommendation to the
Commission.
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 5
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8A. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE
TRANSIT AGENCY AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMENDMENT -
RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO U2A
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, informed the Commission that at their February 25,
1999 meeting, the RTA Board took action to amend their Short Range Transit Plan
and capital budget to include the addition of nine full size coaches and nineteen
paratransit vehicles, with an estimated total cost of $4.175 million. There are
sufficient federal funding and local match to permit RTA to include the replacement
of these units in their SRTP and Federal Program of Projects. The Federal Transit
Administration requires that a public hearing be held to receive any comments on
the proposed program projects. When this item was reviewed by the Plans and
Programs Committee, they discussed the Commission's and RTA's policy relating
to new purchase and whether the vehicles should be alternative fueled vehicles.
He noted that in January 1993, the Commission took a position to encourage
transit operators to purchase clean fuel vehicles for vehicles with less than 40
seats. The Committee, when they reviewed this item, recommended that the
Commission adopt a policy mandating purchase of all replacement and/or new
vehicles be made with alternative fueled vehicles.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that he discussed this item with Susan
Hafner, RTA General Manager, and she informed him that of the last three or four
acquisitions, RTA has secured 33 CNG buses. 100% of the acquisition of the full
size buses has been alternative fuel-. RTA intends to adhere to that policy, but
expect continued fiscal support from RCTC and others. There is difficulty in the
paratransit vehicles, in that their life is about one half of the useful life of the full
sized vehicles. He felt that the RTA policy was consistent with the Commission's
intent.
Commissioner Bob Buster stated that it is apparent that RTA cowers a much broader
geographic area than the SunLine Transit Agency so refueling facilities become a
major factor in conversion to alternative fuel vehicles and so there must be a plan
as well as a unified approach for refueling stations, not only for the bus services,
but for public fleets, where possible, and for large and small vehicles.
Commissioner John Hunt said that as a member of the RTA Board and RTA utilizes
the cleanest fuel available when purchasing vehicles when funds are available,
Otherwise, the operations focus on providing service in the most efficient way
possible as to minimize the overall emission of the existing vehicles. Additionally,
RTA has exclusively purchased CNG 40 foot buses and has a fleet of 33 CNG buses
and trolleys. All large buses in upcoming budgets and plans are considered to be
CNG fuel. He then informed the Commission of the satellite facility being built
located at Lincoln and 2' Street in Banning, which will improve refueling of
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 6
vehicles.
Commissioner Mullen asked if there is any way to appropriately tighten the policy
as there is a tremendous amount of latitute when an operator looks at the amount
of funds available and purchasing small vehicles in lieu of a large bus. There may
be only enough funding for five buses when RTA wants 10 buses, and will they go
to non -clean fuel buses.
Susan Hafner noted that the main limitation that RTA has when it comes to
acquiring CNG minibuses or dial -a -ride vehicles, is the fueling infrastructure. RTA
only has one facility located atThird Street and Chicago Avenue in Riverside. There
are fueling limitations with CNG buses which would prohibit them from serving the
entire 2500 sq mi of service area from one location. The RTA Board is currently
working on a satellite facility program which would have multiple smaller satellites
which would have the fueling infrastructure. They are working on an acquisition
in the Hemet area and are working cooperatively with the City and County to
establish that CNG fueling infrastructure. Currently they do not have the fueling
infrastructure to fuel all of the dial -a -ride vehicles that they currently have that serve
the outlining areas.
Commissioners Percy Byrd asked about the time frame for the proposal to be in
place, and Susan Hafner said that the time line for having a CNG infrastructure is
probably about 1 % years outside the acquisition (1 %2 years after the end of this
summer).
Commissioner Jan Leja stated that it was important to note that SunLine has a
different situation as the cities that the provide service for are closer together
whereas RTA has an expansive area and it takes time, additional planning and
acquisitions. She is not aware of any cities in Western Riverside County purposely
staying away from fuel efficient, clean fuels. However, the fueling stations must
be put in place first.
Commissioner Buster suggested that RCTC work on a refueling station plan; a plan
with coordination between public agencies as well as private agencies. This item
should be presented to the Commission's. Plans and Programs Committee.
Eric Haley indicated noted that Commissioner Will Kleindienst sits on the Mobile
Source Review Committee. RTA will be encouraged to participate in the process
to obtain Mobile Source Review Committee grants. Those grants include fueling
infrastructure; one avenue to provide RTA assistance. He will be happy to work
with WRCOG, and CVAG to develop a CNG fueling network.
Commissioner Dick Kelly asked, if RTA has 60 paratransit buses, is there a
possibility to purchase alternate fuel vehicles in the area where they do have fueling
stations and use the vehicles that are currently not equipped that are not being
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 7
replaced in the outlining areas. Susan Hafner noted that, currently, it would be a
problem because the City of Riverside operates their own dial -a -ride system. Aal
of the dial -a -rides are utilized and provided in the outlining areas. The focus of
RTA's dial -a -ride efforts are in the Hemet and San Jacinto area. They are working
very hard to acquire a.facility, in this area so in the future, they will be able to serve
the area with CNG.
Commissioner Kelly stated that the Commission established its policy in 1993 and
we may be remissed in not revising that policy since that time or at least establish
a different policy. There will always be100 reasons for not being able to go to
alternate fuel. This problem is here today because we were not doing what we
were suppose to be doing 2-3 years ago. Until there is a firm policy in place, the
Commission will be faced to make these decisions in the future. Before the
•Commission approves not purchasing alternate fuel vehicles, there ought be a firm
policy established.
Commissioner Leja added and Commissioner Mullen agreed that there needs to be
a transition date. Commissioner Mullen suggested to continue this item and direct
staff to come back with a policy regarding alternate fuel vehicles in Riverside
County as without a firm policy, there will always be excuses not to get there.
Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe iterated that the San Jacinto Valley is
experiencing a shortage of acceptable levels of dial -a -ride service. It is impacted
with the number of seniors and handicapped people residing in the valley. The
ADA has dramatically cut into the effectiveness of their local dial -a -ride program.
She is a proponent of alternate fuel, however, to have 1 %2 year delay on delivery
of CNG vehicles is not acceptable. She encouraged the Commission to move
forward with this, allow RTA to buy the vehicles, have the Plans and Programs
Committee look at a plan or perhaps a task force to come forward with a policy.
Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed that in the smaller cities in the Western
Riverside County, there is a great demand for a short and long-term strategic plan
for alternate fuel vehicles which is currently not in place. It is dependant on this
Commission, with RTA, to setup a task force as Commissioner Buster proposed to
come up with a strategic plan so that the Commission knows which facilities to
move towards for the public sector as well as for the private sector.
Commissioner Chris Silva asked about the time frame and Eric Haley indicated that
the proposal will be referred to the Commission in sixty days.
The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public
hearing was closed.
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 8
M/S/C (Mullen/Hall) to: 1) approve the amended Program of Projects as
proposed, and 2) amend Riverside Transit Agency's FY 1999 Short Range
Transit Plan to reflect these changes, and 3) direct staff, in coordination
with public and private sectors, develop an alternative fuel strategic plan for
presentation to the Plans and Programs Committee and to the Commission
in 60 days.
8B. DRAFT FY 1999/2000 BUDGET
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, provided an summary of the proposed budget
was for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The total budget expenditures are $103 million.
Measure "A" revenues makeup 75% of the Commission revenue.
Chairman van Haaster opened the public hearing. There being no no input from the
public, the Chair declared that to continue the public hearing to the next month's
meeting.
M/S/C (KELLY/WILSON) to continue the public hearing on the Commission's
draft FY 1999/200 Budget to the June meeting.
9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00
Susan Cornelison, Program Manager, stated that RCTC is one of the five member agencies
that compose the agency known as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority or
Metrolink. The budget must be approved by all five county agencies. In effect, this is a
reauthorization of the member agencies for. Metrolink to continue to operate. The full
budget totalling $172 million is included in the agenda packet. Funding sources are
varied. RCTC's contribution this year over last year is 2.8% 'greater. The recommendation
is to approve the preliminary estimated Metrolink budget and to .authorize RCTC's payment
to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3.3 million
over the next fiscal year. She then informed the Commission that last Friday, Metrolink
administration received information that Ventura and Orange Countias wanted to defer
maintenance on some of their right-of-way over which Metrolink traffic passes. Ventura
County Transportation Commission (VCTC).not only wants to defer their maintenance and
therefore reduce some of the maintenance costs reflected in the budget, but desired to
increase the level of service and expand their operating territory. Commissioner Will
Kleindienst (one of RCTC representative to SCRRA) expressed concerned that any
reduction of the right-of-way would result in a lower class of service than what Metrolink
is generally able to provide. There are very high standards within the five county region,
proud of the quality of our infrastructure and how that provides for safe and smooth
operating trains. Metrolink staff and engineering would not allow deferred maintenance to
compromise safety, but in order for that not to occur we would have to probably issue
"slow orders" and other things that could reduce the quality of service. Consequently the
recommendation is that RCTC's adoption and approval of the Metrolink budget is
contingent upon no county deferring maintenance to the point that the Metrolink high
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 9
standards or quality of service be affected. Even though the impact is not in Riverside
County, it is a reflection of the system.
In response to Commissioner Buster whether controls are in place as a result of the internal
audit that Metrolink had .undergone, Susan Cornelison said that Metrolink has provided
assurance and they are in the process of redefining their role.
Commissioner Ron Roberts asked if other counties were taking the same stance and if they
were aware of the issue, and Susan Cornelison stated that the David Solow, Metrolink
Executive Director, was given a copy and is aware. It is not generally the practice to
interfere in the budgetary controls of its sister agencies. It was never brought up during
the 7'/s months it took to develop the budget, that Ventura would reduce part of the
maintenance level in order to increase frequency of service. An additional challenge is that
the current Chair of Metrolink is the VCTC representative.
Commissioner Alex Clifford indicated that he felt very strongly about the issues of
maintenance but it will be helpful for the Commission to understand at the extreme what
this language will mean. It seems to say that RCTC's funding of its share of the system
is contingent upon these issues identified. Metrolink has yet to have a discussion about
some type of standard in order to participate in the system. If a policy was developed
wherein the Board ultimately approved Ventura to do what they desire in their county,
would it mean that RCTC not pay its share and shut down Riverside County service.
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, stated that the language as written is
intended for the RCTC representatives to SCRRA to have approval of the budget if they
have the comfort level that any deferral of maintenance wilE not cause a major problem.
If they do not -have that comfort level, they could vote against the adoption of the budget.
The intend was so that the budget could move on if RCTC representatives have that
comfort level and they do not need to come back to the Commission. If in negotiations
at SCRRA, the RCTC representative did not have that comfort level, then it should be
brought back to the Commission.
Commissioner Clifford stated that is what was needed, but collectively the representatives
to the Metrolink Board believe very firmly •that there needs to be a policy regarding the
minimal level of service. It may take a year or two to develop a policy.
Commissioner Mullen stated that RCTC should not be part of an organization that puts
people's lives in jeopardy.
Commissioner Clifford clarified that as it relates to safety, Metrolink will not allow any
county to degrade their level of funding on maintenance to the extent that it jeopardizes
safety. What this is, is the next increment of maintenance -of -way that then impacts the
ability to provide the number of trains that is needed and to provide those trains on time,
as scheduled. When you start running into issues of maintenance -of -way, and it begins
having problems or cannot provide on -time service, even if it only occurs in Ventura or
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 10
Orange County, it is a reflection of the system as a whole. Your representatives believe
that they ought to force all of the counties to provide that next increment of maintenance
consistently year in and year out because what .they do in their county does reflect upon
on us.
Commissioner Tom Mullen concurred and did not believe that what Ventura or Orange
were proposing would rise to the level of a real safety concern, but it is that incremental
thing, and he didn't think that should be allowed.
M/S/C (Mullen/Venable) approve the preliminary 1999/00 Metrolink combined
budgets and authorize RCTC's annual allocation to the Southern California Regional
Rail Authority in FY1999/00 ,for an amount not to exceed $3.3 million, provided
that: 1) Maintenance -of -way will not be deferred in any county to the extent that
Metrolink's high standards of safety and quality performance will be effected; and,
2) No county which seeks to defer the proposed maintenance -of -way shall instead
extend operating territory or increase levels of service.
10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES
Jerry Rivera stated that in January the RTA Board passed the Financial Policies for the
agency. Normally the Commission would not get involved in establishing any operating
policies for transit operators. However, this particular policy would set precedence by
using reserves for the general fund and for their capital improvement fund. Originally, RTA
proposed to set aside 33.3% of their operating budget for the general fund and $5 million
for their capital fund. The RTA Finance Committee and representatives from the
Commission met to discuss their proposed policy. Because of major concerns whether this
was allowed- by RTA, and whether it would be financially responsible to set aside funds
for reserves while cutting back services in some areas or not providing a service in some
areas. It was agreed that RTA would be allowed to maintain a reserve of 20% of the
operating funds. Based on their current budget, it would be approximately $4 million. The
capital reserve fund would be set at $800 thousand, and that would allow RTA to have
funds regularly available for any unforseen capital expenditures cr lack of immediate
funding.
M/S/C (Pettis/Buster) adopt the Riverside Transit Agency Financial Policies.
11. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT
AGENCY
Jerry Rivera said that this item amends RTA's current operating plan to establish new •
services that were included in RTA's Comprehensive Operational Analysis. Their approved
plan had set aside $778,000 towards service demonstration programs. After analysis of
their Comprehensive Operational Analysis, they have decided to increase services on
various routes adding almost 4000 hours, increasing vehicle service miles by over 42,000
and adding an additional route in the southern quarter for the Welfare to Work project. The
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 11
estimated cost on the increase of services is $361,000. RTA has been awarded two
discretionary grants in the current fiscal year which will require some additional local .
matching funds.
M/SIC (ReeserLowe/Hunt) to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 1999 Riverside
Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes totaling 7,801
revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue miles; 2) Authorize the transfer of
$8,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b)
Mountain Communities planning study; and, 3) Authorize the transfer of $12,000
from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match toward the Mountain Communities
Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program demonstration project for the purchase of
one additional paratransit vehicle.
12. STATUS OF STRATEGIC PLAN
Sean Boyea, Boyea Capital Markets, presented a brief overview of the progress in
compiling the Strategic Plan. The update of the Strategic Plan is divided into two phases:
1) Phase One is an update to the existing plan; and, 2) Phase Two is a broader county-
wide transportation solutions beyond Measure "A". Phase One is divided into several
different components such as funding. There will be an update on funding sources, the
magnitude of funding, timing, and the eligible uses of federal, state and local funding.
There will also be a project status update, as well as, proposed projects. The cash flow
model will further enhance the Commission's ability to plan programs and fund projects.
13. 1998 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM CONFORMITY SUSPENSION
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst, stated that this issue was presented directly to the
Commission because it arose just prior to the agenda mailing. The Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) contain
transportation improvement projects were approved on June 8, 1998 and July 31, 1998
respectively. These documents are required to be prepared by the metropolitan planing
organization, SCAG, in conjunction with the regional transportation agency within the
SCAG region. The RTP is required to be updated every 3 years and the RTIP is updated
soon after. The federal government requires all plans and programs be in conformance
with the state implementation plans, also known as STIP. There are three tests required
to receive funding: 1) emissions test; 2) timely implementation transportation control
measures (TCM's); 3) financial constraints. On March 2, 1999, the Unites States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in the case of the
Environmental Defense Fund v. the Environmental Protection Agency. One of the
provisions that .was struck down was use of the PM 10 emissions budget for the
conformity determinations made by SCAG for the 1998 RTP and RTIP. SCAG conducted
the modeling analysis over the past few weeks and released the analysis for a 30-day
public comment period as of May 7, 1999. Hopefully after the public comment period
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 12
there will no unforseen issues or problems and FHWA and EPA can go ahead and update
the conformity status. In the meantime, under conformity suspension, the FHWA cannot
approve projects that are capacity enhancements. Shirley Medina then reviewed the list
of projects affected by the ruling.
In response to Corky.Larson's, Executive Director of CVAG, question regarding projects on
the list in her area, Shirley Medina indicated that there did not appear to be any CVAG
projects on the schedule within the time -frame.
The Commissioners looked to RCTC's representatives on SCAG to monitor the status on
this issue.
14. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
Chairman van Haaster informed the Commission that the Executive Committee reviewed
this item and recommended that the Public Information Officer position be an at -will
position for two years. In addition, it was recommended that an executive search agency
be hired to search for the best qualified candidates for this position.
The Commission determined to authorize the Executive Director to hire a recruitment firm
for this position.
15. PRESENTATION
15A. GAS PRICE INCREASE AND ITS BENEFITS
David --Shepherd, RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative Affairs, informed the
Commission that the California Energy Commission puts out monthly reports on the
national and state average. Nationally the cost per gallon for gasoline is at $1.23,
and $1 .53 statewide. Last year there was decline of gas price due to a large supply
situation. OPEC then reduced the total supply of gas that they offered by about
30%. These led to the gas price increase. In addition, in California, there were
refinery fires which impacted the price. The price has gone up because the supply
and demand scale is tipped right now in the favor of the suppliers. Assemblyman
Jim Battin has recommended that California Air Resources Board put forth 120 day
suspension on the requirement for cleaner fuel which will result in a cheaper cost
to the producer and, therefore, result in a reduction in the price of gas. However,
there is not support in Sacramento or statewide. Governor Gray Davis has stated
that this is an indication that we need to find alternative fuel sources that are
cleaner and more readily available to be produced at a lower cost. FTC is
reviewing a proposed merger between Exxon, Mobile, BP (which is Amco & Arco)
and the supply issue and the OPEC decision. Senator Barbara Boxer has made the
request to the FTC to require that as part of the condition of that merger that they
reserve a reasonable supply for the independent owners. There has not been a lot
said our of the Attorney General's Office, but he is looking into the issue and is
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 13
working with the FTC on the merger reviews and those issues. Unwillingly, there
is an effect on entities like ourselves and the State because of the additional sales
tax dollars on the gas tax.
15B. ANNUAL INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC SURVEY
Barbara Sirotnik, Inland Empire Research Consortium, stated that a press conference
was held last week on the survey. This effort is a partnership between Max
Neiman at UC Riverside and the Institute of Applied Research at Cal State San
Bernardino. One of the major findings is that there were not that many differences
between the two counties. The survey objectives are to look at a variety of issues,
issues about private/public sectors, services/activities, crime, pollution, immigration,
etc. About 2,000 people were surveyed. Most of the Inland Empire residents
consider their County: 1) as a good place to live; and, 2) is strong economically and
their family finances have either improved or stayed the same as last year. Most of
the respondents spend less than 1 hour commuting to and from work each day and
most commute to work within their own county. However, respondents are least
satisfied with the upkeep of streets and roads. She noted that Inland Empire
respondents are confident that their elected officials adopt policies which benefit
their community.
Shel Bockman, Inland Empire Research Consortium, continued the presentation and
said that with the findings came some policy recommendations in order to improve
the quality of life in the Inland Empire: 1) policy makers must work on reducing
the crime factor in the area; 2) improve the quality of entertainment and cultural
activities; 3) transportation is an intra-regional problem and they believe that it will
get worse over time unless some consideration is given to this problem; 4)
maintenance of local roads; and, 4) improve air quality. Some policy makers believe
that increased regulatory laws may hamper economic development in the area, but
in the contrary, better air quality control can be used as a means of bringing more
firms into the area. In our findings, the two county area should be treated as a
region, not as separate entities.
Chairman van Haaster stated that there may be pockets that do not quite fit into
this model. In the southwest county, there was a similar statistical survey relating
to the question of commute time and whether they would be willing to take a lesser
amount of pay, which contradicts these findings. There may be pockets throughout
the two counties where there are not only differences, but extreme differences.
Shel Bockman indicated that was an excellent point. In San Bernardino County,
their charge has been to break the survey down into four different regions of
interest to SanBAG. He suggested that RCTC consider having a breakdown by
regions within the Riverside County for next year which could be done by zip code.
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 14
15C. SCA 3 (BURTON) AMENDMENT
Eric Haley informed the Commission that there is a memorandum included in the
packet dated May 11, 1999, asking all the entities in the State to support this
proposal and to meet with Senator John Burton next week. He then reviewed the
constitutional amendment proposal. Gas tax is favored by 13%, bonds 17%, and
the extension of local sales tax 62%. The statewide approach on sales taxes was
looked at in six regions in the state, no region was under 50% support. He noted
that we could be in the position of fine tuning a new work program ,moving it out
to the cities and counties for ratification and actually getting engaged in refinancing
and extending our measure as early as within 24 months. This is an acceleration
of the process of reauthorizing our measure. The only current transportation funding
programs in the State of California that enjoys substantial support are the self-help
counties and the existing sales taxes. This is a state sales tax effort, locally
collected, locally controlled, locally planned and programed and the constitutional
amendment will guarantee all of the local facets of it, but it is as every other sales
tax has been on the state ballot, it is a 50% issue. This does not affect 2/3
threshold for Propositions 218 or 13 at all.
MIS/C (Mullen/Venable) support amending SCA 3 (Burton) to allow a
statewide ballot measure for a statewide transportation sales tax collected
locally and authorize the Executive Director to attend meetings with the
coalition to move this process forward.
15D. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE LOAN
Eric Haley stated that this was an initiative by the Senate Republican Caucus that
fits with the bill that RCTC is.sponsoring, which is the State Highway Account, AB
1012. Senator James Brulte is proposing to create an infrastructure bank which
would allow agencies to have access to funds with little or no interest and
essentially borrow from ourselves and eliminates the transaction cost that goes with
the bonds, as well as the interest, which is a beginning of a real infrastructure bank
proposal and to think in tandem with reauthorizing the sales taxes, this kind of
model is where we should be going.
Commissioner Bob Buster asked if this proposal was better than the State Gas Tax
Loan bill that the Commission was endorsing, and Eric Haley said that it was not
as there is a much larger amount of money available with the Highway Account
Loan Program. But in the long run, Senator Brulte's proposal creates a revolving
fund in an infrastructure bank which will go long beyond the period of time that the
State Highway Account balance is artificially high. This is a two fold process.
M/S/C (Leja/Wilson) support the Senate Republican proposal to provide for
infrastructure loans.
RCTC Minutes
May 12, 1999
Page 15
16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
763. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
I n response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question on AB 1012, David Shepherd,
RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative. Affairs, explained that the bill is moving
forward. It has passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0. It went
through very quickly. A large number of people came up to support the bill,
including Eric Haley and myself testified in favor of the bill. It is in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. No hearing date has been set, there are some issues
related to the loan bill for the State Department of Finance because the interest is
helping the general fund.
Commissioner Buster requested a monthly update on this matter.
M/S/C (Buster/Mullen) to support AB 1425, SB 481 with Amendments, SB
1043, and Seek Amendments AB 1571, and receive and file the State and
Federal Legislative Update.
17. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Chairman van Haaster announced that the June Commission meeting will be held on June
2', rather than June 9' at 9:00 a.m.
18. ADJOURNMENT
There being -no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
12:20 p.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is
scheduled to be held on Wednesday, June 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the University of
California Chancellor's Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
C2-V OJ`
Nat Ko
Clerk of t e Board
NAME
;/1-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
J ?Nd Gif i Egnl i K
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
e - e%/4 a / 5
i /.A'D
%r l l y C f
Tv-r�
.-,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999
9:00 A.M.
SIGN -IN SHEET
AGENCY
ryvrf 94-3,
" 7 ( LA l UP C7/
1%i,tC
/1/'
CME>A
C/?✓vN K
1 rii r),/4ti- 427= l S
• / _
6/6-6 e // /3 7-74 6- -7-L/
17-k- C r/
�,6,e //if�
GvE_s T
f=i�,uK �igLc
Signing is not required
e(•.?-;bC.
tam/7.>144-2-rd
a"eAV. /l cg
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
fl%y' 67 ?-111Yt /
•
U% I ( l
70 `
/ GP'
/mac q
/ '77 —
( 2.7n f _3
/y i.
9G5'- 795- e973 / 7u
/ '143 g4-3 i1 DS
- 777. 7(-7)Z - '1-17 -7I6
fire S733- szcam/ %-3-2/-02. 7
`tc'S-7Y2-S"'/G1/1
Lic9 „}t,
Naccv (9o9) 73ss_A/9D /
•-/ '7`- ,
•?2• �:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
SFY(z-Ne-S
Signing is not required
AGENCY
Co- o- ALYel n 5
A94/14 SPR1n96a
Ceo wt�
-7,41\' C (42 r,
�.:. wN. CAL"
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
(c1Ucl)3P3-yU) D / g)P' -3f.3 - 6a37
7 VI
766-gas-R- oc / 760-32.3-$zo7
W?-?,(7-- /0/ l gsf-��S=�oi9
76C '3.)-
I - !Z 3S/
787-7/4-/l 7S7-mac
/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999
9:00 A.M.
PLEASE SIGN IN
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE
COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE
COMMISSION
NAME
f i13C)(b
c".7
r /10
/-7/) A/ /
C
4
r
ac-�
,
}V
Signing is not required
AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
R. C ..6 • C. 7!Zi • frRr. 2309 / Y2 33 1
gevy/e ,�i��iz��:�� 9J 923 -S,,25"/ 932 -s�,zs
6e�- ao / 6E3v /��
7/' ?0 C/S
9("7
qv7
A VT
A VT
(<./ /764-(1-4
�r c 06
/V t -C'z
4
� 0vc7 9 -
761,?,ye)
/�/
9 o c-1 1)63/ 96 6 17(
7N 7 - -7ie r / 74'�r /
/
‘ 77a Y?i f' l
/
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page2)
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND
SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION
NAME
Old( DCyle
/21%6/c (
r�6) f{)a,y-
r
L .J
Cl
Signing is not required
AGENCY
S cG
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
(9C9>>33-1-1147/ 353-6z�S�
9'0? 7P-/-352.6 / 7,- 4 3527
.1-/ (6)(5))_?96- 2 a 98 efa,9) ,?c4 - 3633
78-7--7y/ -7-2
7coo 'CL— 77.7J/76o-
Sc �
14/,e L G' cc,--
c
C,
4)0(1 y/33/ cr y/ 3 3 ( yt
77v
qs--- 2;t75-
/ �6 2445,
'26''2-'91 yl
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
2:30 p.m.
Monday, May 24, 1999
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Vice Chairman Tom Mullen called the special meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission to order at 2:30 p.m. at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Conference Room "A", 3560 University Avenue, Riverside and by video conference
at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta.
Members/Altemates Present: Members Absent:
Eugene Bourbonnais
John M. Chlebnik
Alex Clifford
Jeff Comerchero
Juan M. DeLara*
Frank Hall
John Hunt
William Kleindienst
Al Landers
Michael Landes
Tom Mullen
Frank Parrot
John Pena*
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea M. Puga
Robin Reeser Lowe
Jim Smedley
John Tavaglione
Jim Venable
Donald F. Yokaitis
*Video Conference Site
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no comments from the public.
Bob Buster
Robert Crain
Chris Silva
Jack F. van Haaster
Frank West
Roy Wilson
3. EMERGENCY AMENDMENT TO THE FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TO PURCHASE 19 PREVIOUSLY OWNED CNG EXPANSION
BUSES.
In response to Commissioner Andrea Puga as to where funding will come from to purchase the
vehicles and whether or not the action will affect funds allocated to Western Riverside County, Eric
Haley, Executive Director, responded that funding are reserves that are sub -allocated to the
Coachella Valley area.
Commissioner Kevin Pape asked if SunLine representatives have actually seen the vehicles and.
Bill Maier, Chief Financial Officer for the SunLine Transit Agency, replied that they have been to
Texas and where they were able to thoroughly examine the seven vehicles they were originally
going to purchase and have been assured that the remaining vehicles are in similar condition with
less than 3,000 hours on the CNG engines.
M/SIC (Hunt/Kleindienst) approve an emergency amendment to the FY 199-99 Short
Range Transit Plan for the SunLine Transit Agency to purchase 19 previously -owned
CNG expansion buses.
4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. The next meeting of the Commission is
scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 2, 1999, at the UCR Chancellor's Conference
Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside.
Respectfully submitted,
tY
Clerk o
he Bo
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans & Programs Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funding Agreement
At the March 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission approved the use of STIP Planning,
Programming and Monitoring (PP&M) funds to support three projects in the Eastern
County: Project Master Plan in the Palo Verde Valley, 1-10 lane addition Project Study
Report, and CVAG Staff Project Monitoring. Since the Commission retains fiduciary
responsibility for the funds received through the State for these PP&M activities, a
funding agreement is necessary for RCTC to allocate these funds to CVAG.
The attached agreement requires that CVAG accept and follow the requirements
placed by the State on RCTC for receipt of these funds. The draft agreement was
developed by Legal Counsel and has been reviewed by CVAG staff.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$317,297
Source of Funds
STIP 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programed
98/99
Approved Allocation
Y
Year of Allocation
98/99
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve and execute the attached funding agreement between
RCTC and CVAG for the use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds.
l; U 1
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
1. Parties and Date.
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1999, by
and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter referred to as
"RCTC") and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (hereinafter referred to as
"CVAG").
2. Recitals.
2.1 RCTC has entered into Agreement No. PPM98-6054-001 ("RCTC-State
Agreement") with the California Department of Transportation ("State"), under which State has
agreed to provide State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming
and Monitoring Program (PPM) funds to RCTC for the monitoring of project implementation for
projects approved in the 1998 STIP and in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program
("RTIP").
2.2 RCTC has allocated certain of the PPM for use by CVAG on three transportation -
related projects.
2.3 RCTC and CVAG wish to enter into this Agreement in order for RCTC to pass
PPM funding on to CVAG so that CVAG may implement the three transportation -related
projects.
3. Terms.
3.1 Relation to RCTC-State Agreement. This Agreement shall be subject to the
provisions of the RCTC-State Agreement, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
reference. CVAG agrees to accept, be bound by and perform all duties, responsibilities and
obligations which RCTC has assumed under the terms of the RCTC-State Agreement, including,
but not limited to, the reporting and auditing provisions. CVAG also agrees to take any action
requested by RCTC that is necessary or conducive to assisting RCTC in fulfilling RCTC's
obligations under the RCTC-State Agreement. CVAG acknowledges that any failure on its part
to comply with this section 3.1 may result in a reduction or elimination of reimbursement under
this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement and the RCTC-State Agreement are
inconsistent, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern as between RCTC and CVAG.
R V PUBIPBC1507767
1 , r
vvU
:s i+
3.2 Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective from the date first above
written until June 30, 2001, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.
3.3 Projects. As used throughout this Agreement, the term "Projects" shall mean the
three transportation projects described in more detail in Exhibit "B," incorporated herein, also
known as CVAG Project Monitoring, the Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley, and the I-10 Project
Study Report.
3.4 General Scope of Grant. CVAG shall use the funds granted hereunder exclusively
to implement, staff, manage and operate the Projects. CVAG shall be solely responsible for
implementing, staffing, managing and operating the Projects in the manner described herein. As
such, CVAG agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, required licenses, permits, fees and
other appropriate legal authorization from all applicable federal, state and local jurisdictions
necessary to perform and complete the Projects. The funds provided under this Agreement are
specifically for the Projects and are the entire amount that RCTC shall to provide to the Projects,
unless this Agreement is amended in writing by RCTC and CVAG. Any use of funds granted
hereunder shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC.
3.5 Responsibilities of CVAG.
3.5.1 Indemnification. CVAG shall defend, indemnify and hold RCTC, its
officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all liability
from loss, damage, or injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner
arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions or willful misconduct of CVAG or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers arising out of or in any way connected with
this Agreement or the Projects, including without limitation the payment of attorneys' fees.
Further, CVAG shall defend at its own expense, including the payment of attorneys' fees, RCTC;
its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers in any legal action based upon such acts,
omissions or willful misconduct.
3.5.2 Financial Contributions. CVAG shall expend RCTC financial
contributions entirely on the Projects, as allocated in Exhibit "B" and shall comply with any
requirements and restrictions imposed by RCTC and/or the State on the use of the financial
contributions made pursuant to this Agreement.
3.5.3 Invoices. CVAG shall prepare, and submit to RCTC, in a form that RCTC
can then submit to the State as described in the RCTC-State Agreement, an original and three
copies of signed invoices for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by CVAG for the
Projects.
3.5.4 Timely Use Of Funds. In order to comply with the State requirement for
timely use of State funds, CVAG agrees that it shall enter into any contracts required to complete
the Projects by December 31, 1999 and shall complete the Projects by December 31, 2000.
R VPUB\PBC\507767
0Gj6u�
3.6 RCTC's Responsibilities. RCTC shall disburse up to a total of $ 317,297 in STIP
PPM funds provided under the RCTC-State Agreement for the Projects. RCTC will make
disbursements to CVAG not more often than monthly in arrears, once the funds are received
from the State and upon proper documentation as described in the RCTC-State Agreement. In no
event shall RCTC be obligated to disburse funds to CVAG before RCTC has received the funds
from the State. Any action or failure to act by CVAG that causes, or contributes to, the State's
failure to reimburse RCTC for any costs under this agreement or the RCTC-State Agreement will
result in a proportionate reduction or elimination of reimbursement to CVAG under this
Agreement.
3.7 Accounting Records.
3.7.1 Retention of Records. CVAG shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to costs incurred and other records generated under this Agreement. All
such records shall be clearly identifiable. CVAG shall allow a representative of RCTC during
normal business hours to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records. CVAG
shall maintain all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement for
a period of three (3) years from the expiration of this Agreement and shall allow inspection
hereunder during such time.
3.7.2 Accounting of Funds. When requested by RCTC, CVAG shall within ten
(10) days provide RCTC with a full reporting and accounting of all STIP PPM funds received
during the term of this Agreement.
3.7.3 Project Reports. CVAG shall prepare quarterly written project status and
accounting reports regarding the Projects. These reports shall be provided to RCTC for review
and comment.
3.8 General Provisions.
3.8.1 Termination of Agreement. RCTC may, by written notice to CVAG,
terminate the whole or part of this Agreement at any time for cause by giving written notice to
CVAG of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Cause shall include, but not
be limited to, any action by the State to suspend, terminate or cancel the RCTC-State Agreement.
Upon notice of termination, CVAG shall cease expenditure of STIP PPM funds and promptly
return all such unexpended funds to RCTC. Upon termination, RCTC may require CVAG to
provide to RCTC all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, drawings, reports, etc.
provided by CVAG in connection with the performance of this Agreement.
3.8.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or to other such
address or addresses as may hereafter be designated in writing for this purpose:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Executive Director
R VPUBTBC\507767
GvvtiU4
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste. 200
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or three days after deposit in the
U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address,
whichever is earlier.
3.8.3 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other
party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such Iitigation
shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
suits.
3.8.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a written instrument
signed by both parties.
3.8.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California, with venue in Riverside County.
3.8.6 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of
this Agreement.
3.8.7 Assignment Prohibited. This Agreement shall not be assigned by CVAG
without the prior written consent of RCTC.
R VPUB\PBC\507767
Obj605
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on
the date first written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: OF GOVERNMENTS:
By: By:
Councilman Jack F. van Haaster,
Chairman Its:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL:
By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
By:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside
County Transportation Commission
R VPUBWBC1507767
Ol.+J6u6
EXHIBIT "A"
RCTC-State Agreement
R VPUBTBC\507767
06Juu7
STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING 8,- MONITORING PROGRAM
FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT
Agreement No. PPM98-6054 (001) Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project Number: PPM98-6054(011) EA: 08-46860G
THIS AGREEMENT entered into on , 199_ is between the State of California,
acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE,
and Riverside County Transportation Commission, a local public agency, hereinafter referred
to as AGENCY.
WHEREAS the Califomia State Budget Act of 1998 appropriates State Highway funds under
local assistance for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning,
Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM), and
WHEREAS PPM is defined as the project planning, programming and monitoring activities
related to development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State
Transportation Improvement Program required by Govemment Code Section 14527, et. seq.
and for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in these documents,
hereinafter referred to as PPM PROJECT, and
WHEREAS the Department of Transportation is tasked to apportion these funds in accordance
with the amounts approved in the 1998 STIP in accordance with section 14527 (h) of the
California Government code:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
1. As authorized by Section 14527(h) of the Govemment Code.and the California
Transportation Commission Interim STIP Guidelines, Section 12, dated January 15, 1998
and included in item 2660-101-0042 of Chapter 324 of the Statutes of 1998, to reimburse
AGENCY for its PPM PROJECT in an amount not to exceed $1,376,000 from moneys
appropriated in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for the local assistance.
For Caftans Use Oni
I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this
encumbrance
l/
(//zi
0 Accounting Officer
Date 947(91
$/, 3740. e00.0C
Chapter
Statutes
I Year
Program
BC
Category
Fund Source
$
324
1998
2 • • •. 61-0042
•499
20.30.600.670
N
262040
102-042-T
0.00
% 3* C61(
324
1998
2660-101-042
98/99
20.30.600.670
S
262040
102-042-T
.DO
98/99 PPM
9/15/98
— 0 v �U U C!
2. To make reimbursements to AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit.
but not more often than monthly in arrears. upon receipt of an original and two copies of
signed invoices in the proper form of covering actual allowable costs incurred for the
period of the Progress Payment Invoice.
When conducting an audit of the costs claimed under the provisions of this Agreement. to -
rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the
provisions of State and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit. work of other
auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning
and conducting additional audits. _
SECTION 11
AGENCY AGREES:
To use all state funds paid hereunder only for eligible PPM PROJECT specific work
activities as defined Attachment A to this Agreement.
To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation purposes that conform
to Article XIX of the California State Constitution.
To prepare and submit to STATE an original and two copies of signed invoices for
reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by Agency.
4. To repay to State any costs for which AGENCY receives payment that are determined by
subsequent audit to be unallowable within thirty (30) days of AGENCY receiving notice of
audit findings. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due STATE within (30) days of
demand, or within -such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto,
STATE reserves the right to withhold future payments due AGENCY from any source,
including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller.
5. To maintain all source documents, books and records connected with its performance
under this Agreement for a minimum of three years from the date of Final Report of
Expenditures submittal to State or until audit resolution is achieved and to make all such
supporting information available for inspection and audit by representatives of the
STATE. Copies will be made and fumished by AGENCY upon request.
6. To establish and maintain an accounting system conforming to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices
which segregate and accumulate costs of PPM PROJECT work elements and produce
monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching costs, and other
expenditures by AGENCY.
E 3Gud
98/99 PPM
9/15/98a
3
7. To prepare a Final Report of Expenditures including a final invoice reporting actual costs
expended in accordance with Attachment A and submit that Report and invoice no later
than 60 days following the completion of expenditures or August 31. 2001 whichever is
earlier. The Final Report of Expenditures must state that the PPM funds were used in
conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution and for PPM:purposes
as defined in this Agreement. Three copies of this report shall be submitted to STATE.
To obtain an audit for PROJECTS in excess of $300,000. The AGENCY and its
subcontractors may fulfill the audit requirement by either contracting with an accounting
firm to do a project specific auditor arrange to have the project audited concurrently.with
its independent annual audit. fi performed. The audit must state that project funds were
used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State constitution. Three copies of
this report shall be submitted to STATE.
SECTION III
1T IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the availability
of the state funds encumbered under this Agreement.
2. In the event that AGENCY fails to implement or complete the PPM PROJECT
commenced under this Agreement, fails to perform any of the obligations created by this
agreement or fails to comply with applicable State laws and regulations, STATE reserves
the right to terminate funding for the PPM PROJECT or portions thereof, upon written
notice to AGENCY. An audit may be preformed as provided in Section 11, Article (4) of
this agreement.
3. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage
or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
AGENCY under or in connection with any work,. authority or jurisdiction delegated to
AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save
harmless the State of Califomia, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as
defined in Govemment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement.
0 6 J. 0
98/99 PPM
9/15/98a
4
4. As a condition of acceptance of the State funds provided for under this Agreement,
AGENCY will abide by all State policies and procedures pertaining to the PPM
PROJECT.
5. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By:
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date:
06361I.
• Riversid my Transp tton Commission
By: /7,
Title: Eric Haley, Executive Director
Date: '`IL= /q �
Attest: l (Ltk
Title: Na y Kenhav r
Director of Administrative Services
98/99 PPM
9/15/98
RESOLUTION NO. 98-010A
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING A FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the California State Budget.Act of 1998 appropriates. State Highway funds
under local assistance for . the. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning,
Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM)., and
WHEREAS, PPM is defined as the project planning, programming and monitoring activities
related to development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State
Transportation Improvement Program required by Government Code Section 14527, et. seq. and
for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in these documents, hereinafter
referred to as PPM PROJECT, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation is tasked to apportion these funds in
accordance with the amounts approved in the 1998 STIP in accordance with Section 14527(h)
of the California Government Code, and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is responsible for the
development and monitoring of the local State Transportation Improvement Program Planning,
Programming and Monitoring Program and is desirous to receive funding available to support these
efforts, and
WHEREAS, the State requires that a fund transfer agreement be executed to allow the
reimbursement of cost for the development of our PPM Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission an agreement with the State of California and all
other necessary documents to implement and carry out the purposes of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this 14' day of October, 1998.
ATTEST:
_ Naty K1ppenhaver, ,C.J5rik of the
Riverside Cat:nty Transportation Commission
Supervisor Bob Buster, Chairperson
Riverside County Transportation Commission
000012
RCTC STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN
RCTC STAFF ACTIVITIES
TIME FRAME
FY 199E-99
Review Project Study Reports
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
S17,120
STIP Development/Amendment(s)/Monitoring
Local Agency Coordination
CTC/Caltrans Coordination
Development and Processing
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
S17,120
S17,120
S8,560
RTIP Amendment Is) 7/01/98 to 6/30/99
Including: Local Agency Coordin.
SCAG Caltrans Coordin.
Project Monitoring and Implementation
Western County
Eastern County
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
S21,400
S25,680
S42,297
!Staff Costs 1 $149,297
Planning Funds Committed to Date
CETAP
Route 79 Project Study Report
CVAG-Project Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley
CVAG-I-10 Project Study Report
7/01/.98 to 6/30/00
7/01/98 to 6/30/00
:7/01/98 to 6/30/01
7/01/98 to 6/30/01
S751,703
S200,000
S100,000
5175,000
'Total
t 1userwpreDnnt4f)12%PLANto. wk4
000015
I $1,376,000
EXHIBIT `B"
Description of Projects, with Funding Allocations
A. Staff Overhead $ 42,297
Participation in regional transportation planning as related to projects included or
proposed for the STIP; monitoring the implementation of STIP projects; coordination
of project delivery, timely use of funds and compliance with State law and RCTC
guidelines, during FY 1999-2000.
B. Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan $100,000
Development and refinement of several transportation issues in the Palo Verde
Valley area as part of the Riverside County country -wide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, including the alignment/re-alignment of State Route 78,
defining the transportation related impacts of recreational traffic to Colorado River
and desert recreational areas, defining the impacts of commercial truck and rail traffic
and assessing the needs for Interstate 10 interchange improvements. This project will
be ready for bid in the Summer/Fall of 1999.
C. Interstate 10 Lane Addition Project Study Report $175,000
Determine the impact of current and future traffic, particularly commercial truck
traffic, on the capacity of Interstate 10 between Monterey Avenue and the Blythe
Turnoff, near Dillon Road, and prepare a Project Study Report for the addition of a
third traffic lane in both east and west directions. This project will be ready for bid
in the Summer/Fall of 1999.
R VPUB\PBC\507767
000014
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
SB 821 Program Extension Requests from the Cities of Banning,
Cathedral City, Corona, Moreno Valley, Palm Springs, Riverside
and the County of Riverside
In August 1998, the Commission approved the allocation of $676,757 in SB 821
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities funding for the completion of 21 projects by 14 local
agencies. When the funds were approved, the recipients were informed that it is
Commission policy that if project funds are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal
year, the project will be deleted from the program and funds will revert back for
reprogramming in the next year. Funds can be claimed once the agency awards a
contract for completion of the project or local agency staff has begun construction.
Commission policy allows for extension of time beyond the June 30t deadline if
substantial progress has been made on the project.
A letter was mailed to the local recipient agencies on April 26, 1999 reminding them
of their need to claim funds under this project. We have received the following
requests for time extensions.
City of Banning
The City of Banning was allocated $10,431 for the Nicolet Street Sidewalk project:'
Due to staff turnover, the project has been delayed. The City is requesting a six
month extension to December 31, 1999 to complete the project.
City of Cathedral City
The City of Cathedral City was allocated $7,000 for the design and engineering of a
pedestrian bridge in the downtown area. This work is ongoing but is not expected
to be complete until after June 30, 1999. Therefore, the City is requesting a 9-month
extension to March 31, 2000.
000015
City of Corona
The City of Corona was allocated $52,000 for construction of the South Corona
Bikeway Project. To date, plans and specifications have been completed and a notice
inviting bids for construction has been released. Bids are due in on June 2 and
contract award is anticipated in late. June or early July.- Just in case there is a delay,
the City is requesting a six month extension to December 31, 1999.
City of Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley was allocated $26,500 for sidewalk improvements on Sunnymead
Boulevard and Heacock Avenue as well as accessibility enhancements on Village Road
and Alessandro Boulevard. Plans and specifications have been completed for all three
locations and the City is currently preparing to advertise for the construction contract.
Contract award is anticipated by late August, so the City is requesting a three-month
extension to September 30, 1999.
City of Palm Springs
The City of Palm Springs was allocated $46,437 for pedestrian safety improvements
in nine locations around the City. The plans and specifications for the project are
complete and the project will go out for bid later this month with award expected in
June or July. The City is requesting a three-month extension to September 30, 1999
for this project.
City of Riverside
The City of Riverside was allocated a total of $98,950 for the completion of
pedestrian improvements on Arlington Avenue, California Avenue, and Sierra Vista
Street. Requests for bids to complete the construction are currently being advertised
and contract award is expected in June. Just in case the contract award is delayed,
the City is requesting a four -month time extension to October 31, 1999.
County of Riverside
The County was allocated $31,000 for pedestrian improvements along Mayberry
Avenue in the Hemet area. Preliminary design and revised cost estimates have been
completed. Work is currently underway to relocate or remove several trees, fences
and mailboxes which currently encroach on the needed right-of-way. However, it is
unlikely that the construction contract will be awarded until Spring of 2000, so the
County is requesting a time extension to June 30, 2000.
000016
An additional S48,000 was allocated to the County for sidewalk improvements along
Fred Waring Drive in the Indio area. This project is a joint effort with the City of
Indio. The project is currently being advertised for construction and award may be
made in June. However, there is a possibility of delay in completing some right-of-
way acquisition, so the County is requesting a three month extension to September
30, 1999.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$320,318
Source of Funds
TDA Article 3/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programed
1999
Approved Allocation
Y
Year of Allocation
1999
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission grant the Cities of Banning, Cathedral City, Corona, Moreno
Valley, Palm Springs, Riverside and the County time extensions, as requested, to
complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects.
O00017
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
•
State and Federal Legislative Update
State Update
As Delaney Hunter and D.J. Smith's monthly report (attached) states, committees
have been meeting regularly and legislative proposals are rapidly moving or dying as
the deadline for bills to leave policy committees (April 23`d) passed and as the budget
deadline approaches. The Governor's "May Revise" to the fiscal year 1999/2000
State Budget released May 15; after the wring of this report. Early indications are the
Legislature and the Governor will have $3 to $4 billion surplus. Options for financing
future transportation needs are under consideration and certainly will be part of the
budget negotiations.
Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions:
AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D. - Eureka) - State Rail Freight Study. Staff
recommends: Change from OPPOSE to WATCH. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 923 (Robert Hertzberg, D - Sherman Oaks) - Increases fines for rail right-of-way
violations. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 1475 (Nell Soto, D - Pomona) - Designates certain federal funding to school safety
programs. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached.
AB 1612 (Dean Florez, D - Shafter) - Allocates $300 million in State Highway
Account Funds to local street repair. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis
is attached.
SB 1277 (Tom Hayden, D - Los Angeles) - Prohibits road construction on lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish
and Game and state conservancies. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis
is attached.
00001t3
Federal Update
Activities in Washington, D.C. are largely consumed with the appropriations process
and Kosovo. Nevertheless, Senator Kit Bond ° - MO) had indicated a desire to give the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grandfathering powers the courts have
recently ruled it cannot assume on its own. The grandfathering device was invented
by the EPA as an administrative work -around for projects that otherwise, under the
terms of the Clean Air Act, could not .receive funding for a subsequent state of
planning or constructiononce a "conformity lapse" occurred. The court ruling
threatens an undetermined number of projects nationwide. It not only blocks federally -
funded projects from advancing from one state to another, but prevents local
metropolitan planning organizations from approving significant non-federal projects
until an area's transportation plan is back in conformity with the state's clean air plan.
This is critical for California and particularly the South Coast Air Basin as several
projects in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are under threat of being frozen.
Summary
With the policy deadline passed and the budget deadline approaching, the State
Legislature begins to turn its attention to fiscal matters which include options for
financing future transportation needs. In Washington, D.C. appropriations discussions
continue and grandfathering of projects by the EPA may be restored.
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission adopt the following bill positions: Change from Oppose to Watch
- AB 74; Support - AB 923; Oppose - AB 1475, AB 1612 and SB 1277.
000019
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMIVi ,ION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVLRNMLiv PS
POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 38 (Washington)
Extends SCAQMD Authority to
collect $l vehicle license fee for
air quality programs.
.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 11-5 on
3/22/99. Passed the
Senate
Appropriation
Committee 16-5 on
4/14/99. To
Assembly Floor.
SUPPORT
J
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
AB 44 (McClintock)
Would require Ca!trans and local
authorities to redesignate all
existing HOV lanes as mixed
flow.
.
Referred to
Assembly
Transportation
Committee.
Hearing canceled at
the request of
author.
OPPOSE
.
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
AB 71 (Cuneen)
Would permit inherently low-
emission vehicles (ILEV) to
travel in High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes regardless of the
number of occupants in the
1 LEV.
Passed Assembly
Transportation
Committee 18-0 on
4/19/99.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/ 14/99
AB 74 (Strom -Martin)
-
Would permit a private rail freight
operation to compete for State
Intercity Rail funding.
Referred to
Assembly
Transportation
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
CHANGE FROM
SUPPORT TO
WATCH
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC' 3/ 10/99
MALEGMAT.DWS.WPD
0
v
O
I .egislat ion/Aulhor
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of board Adoption
AB 102 (Wildman
and llertzberg)
Would fund the 1989 Priority
Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -lop
of the Stale Highway Account.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 10-7 ON
4/12/99. Referred to
Assemble
Appropriations
Committee, No
hearing date yet.
SEEK AMENDMENT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
AB 276 (Longville)
•
Would redirect a portion of sales
and gas taxes currently going to
the General Fund to the Public
Transportation Account
Referred to
Assermbly
committees on
Revenue, Ta.x and
Transportation. No
hearing date yet.
NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
AB 283 (I.ongville)
Would allow a resolution of
necessity to he approved by a
County Board of Supervisors,
rather than the California
Transportation Comtnission.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 19-0 on
4/19/99. Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
hearing date yet..
SPONSOR -
ADOPTED AS PART
OF THE STATE.
LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM
SANBAG 1/6/99
RCTC 1/13/99
AB 308 (Longville)
Would require a review and
analysis of the Public
Transportation Account
expenditures and a review of the
account's needs
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 12-3 on
4/19/99. Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
f ' ,gislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Dale of Board AL tition ,
AB 521( McClintock)
Would redirect that portion of
sales and gas taxes currently going
to the General Fund to the State
l lighway Account.
Set for hearing on
4/19/99 in the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee.
!-tearing canceled at
the request of
author. Canceled by
Author
, NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
AB 872 (Alquist)
Would allow reimbursement of
local funds used to advance STIP
programmed projects.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 17-0 on
4/12/99. Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
SUPPORT
SANDAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
AB 923 (Hertzberg)
Would increase the fines for Rail
Right of Way violations.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 15-0 on
May 10, 1999.
Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Cornm. No hearing
date yet.
SUPPORT
1
i
C
C.
� � c
ry
MALECIAAT nws wnn
cam._
CD_
i\D
W
t Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 1012 (Torlakson)
A comprehensive' transportation
reform package intended to
enhance Caltrans' operating
environment; includes the
ROTC/SANBAG generated" loan'
concept.
Passed Assembly
'transportation
Committee 18-0 on
4/12/99. Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
AB 1425(Runner)
Provides Statutory Direction To
Caltrans to Insure More TEA21
Funds Flow Directly to Regions..
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 16-1 on
4/12/99. Referred to
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
Hearing Date Yet.
SUPPORT
.
SANI3AG 5/5/99
RCTC 5/11/99
AB 1475 (Soto)
Would Designate a Portion of
Federal Transportation Safety
Funding to School Safety
Programs.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 12-5 on
April 13, 1999.
Placed on Assembly
Appropriations
Suspense File.
OPPOSE
AB 1571
(Villaraigosa)
Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial
Air Standards Attainment
Program.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 18-0 on
4/12/99. Referred to
the Assembly
Appropriations
Committee. No
Hearing Dale Yet.
SEEK AMF.NDMENTS
SANBAG 5/5/99
RCTC 5/11/99
l l:uA P mot twin
fislalion/Author
it
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of hoard A lion
AB 1612 (:lorcz)
Would Allocate S300 Million of
State Highway Account Dollars to
Rehabilitate Streets and Roads.
Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 12-3 on
April 13, 1999.
Referred to the
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee - No
Hearing Date Yet.
OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED
S13 14 (Rainey)
Would require extensive study
prior to construction of future
HOV lanes.
Referred to Senate
"Transportation
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
OPPOSE UNLESS,
AMENDED
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 17 (Figueroa)
Would permit employers to receive
a tax credit for purchasing transit
passes for their employers.
Set for Ilearing in
the Senate Revenue
and Taxation
Committee on
4/21/99. From
Committee author's
amendments,
referred to
committee. No
healing set yet.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 63 (Solis)
Would reduce the minimum
occupancy for the El Monte
Busvvay from 3 plus to 2 plus.
Set for hearing with
the Senate
Transportation
Committee on
4/26/99.
OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 65 (Murray)
Would appropriate $20 Million to
support welfare to work
transportation projects
Placed on Senate
Appropriations
Committee.
Suspense file on
April 19, 1999.
SEEK AMENDMENT
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
O
C:
O
O
•iJ
C�
I Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
Sl3 98 (Alarcon)
Extends SCAQMD Authority to
collect $1 vehicle license fee for
air quality programs.
Passed the Senate
Transportation
Committee on
4/15/99. To Senate
Floor.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RC I C 3/10/99
SB 117 (Murray)
Makes the State Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation fund
permanent.
Passed the Senate
Transportation
Committee 10-0 on
4/21/99. Referred to
Senate
Environmental
(Quality Committee,
No hearing date yet.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 481(Baca)
Establishes a Study of the
Economic Benefits of an inland
Port.
-
Passed Senate
Governmental
Organization
Committee 8 - 1 on
April 12, 1999.
Passed the Senate
Appropriations
Committee 11-1 on
4/12/99. To Senate
Floor,
SUPPORT WITH
AMENDMENTS
SANBAG 5/5/99
RCTC 5/11/99
SB 1043 (Murray)
Requires the California I ligh
Speed Rail Authority to Submit
it's Financial Plan to the
Legislature for Approval,
Passed Senate
Transportation
Committee on 11-1
on May 11, 1999.
Re -referred to the
Senate
Transportation
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 5/5/99
RCI'C 5/11/99
/cM AT_nwS. vein
mum .wrrrJy n-
t.:..
n:
r-j a
.-.- d
O o -
f-
'6661
'L I AeIN aamtuuio0
suopepdotuldv
aseuag
alp u! Supeall
Joi PS '6661 if!
Xelnl c-S aall!wtuo0
aJ!IPI!M Pun
saainosa211eJn1eN
'
.
•sa!nueniasuoa ams aye
pue pump pun ysyjoluawiledao
aye `uo!lealaali pun slam
jo luauiuedac acp jo uopo!psun f
ow aapun spue-1 u! speo21
:15041d0
Mews passe,'
Jo uo!laniisuo0 'mold pinoM
(uap,ttill) LLZI FIS
snlelS
i
uoi1!' / mon jo aro
uoil!sod
MEI
uo!id!lasan
lotlhV/uo!lels!9:, . 1
MEMORANDUM
To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors
From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Bunter -
Date: May 12. 1999
Sukject: Legislative Report and Update
Transportation Finance Proposals
Senator Burton's transportation package continues to move forward ---
. Senate Bill 315 passed out of the Senate on May 10`' on a 32-8 vote. Senator Burton pledged to
send SB 315 to conference committee to be considered as part of an overall transportation
funding proposal.
• Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on
May le'.
•
• The California Transportation Commissntln submitted their needs assessment as required by
Senate Resolution 8, on May 10. The CTC estimates California's need at about S116 billion
(sec attached article from the Sacramento Bee).
Senator Burton's Working Group continues to meet on transportation infrastructure issues. The
next meeting will be on Wednesday May 19 and is likely to focus on the needs assessment
reported by the CTC (see above) and the Department of Transportation.
Assembly Bill 521 (McClintock) was not heard before the policy committee deadline and is
effectively dead for this year. However, there are eismissions around the Capitol that florae part of
the McClintock plan may be used to help with the crisis in transportation funding we are currently
facing.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (Peace and McPherson), the California Business Roundtable
proposal, will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 17. The second part of the
rrilifornia Business Roundtable's proposal, Assembly Bill 1473 (Hertzberg), passed out of the
Assembly Consumer Protection Committee on a 6 to 0 vote on April 66. AB 1473 heads next to
the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will be heard on May 19.
O00027
Assemblyman John Longville's bills on transportation financing continue to move. Assembly Bill
276 was amended on May 10 in Assembly Transportation Committee and now appropriates a one-
time amount of S60 million to public transit. Assembly Bill 477, which would revise the state's
method for taxing the distribution of gas from the current rate of 18 cents per gallon to instead
become 15 percent of the retail price per gallon of gasoline, is now a two year bill. Assemblyman
Longville will use that time to work on refinements with the Board of Equalization to allow for the
best collection method for the tax.
AB 283 (Lont'ville) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill
Assembly Bill 283 introduced by 'Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow
Caltrans CO use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up
the process and help with project delivery. We arc exploring the idea of amending the bill to include an
urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor
Davis.
AB 283 passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee on a vote of I7-0 and is scheduled to be
heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 12.
AB 1012 -- Project Delivery Streamlining Bill
Assembly Bill .1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow
short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee on May 19. We continue to work with all parties, including the Department of
Transportation, to come to agreement on language.
Governor Davis' Commission on the 21' Century
The Governor's Commission has set up special subcommittees — Technology Issues, Facilities Issues,
Transportation Issues and Resources Issues — to heal with all those issues facing California in the
coming years.
The Transportation Issues -Subcommittee held its first meeting on April le. The meeting opened with
general introductions and featured reports from several state agencies. The Department of Finance
gave a demographics projection. The bottom line was that there will be many more people in our state
and an even greater need for highways and transit. Tony Harris of the Department of Transportation
followed reinforced the increasing travel demands of the state and gave a great report on the need to
extend local sales taxes. The next Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for June 1.
Transportation Poll
The results are in from the statewide poll on transportation issues. The overriding results are:
• There is great support for the extension of local sales taxes for transportation.
• Increasing taxes on gasoline is not supported, most likely due to the recent spike in gas prices
statewide.
000028
2
There is support for bonds for transportation, most likely in the $4 to S billion range.
While transportation issues are on the state "radar screen" education still dominates the list of voter
concerns.
3
�0 002
t
Sacramento Kings guard Jason Williams
boogies on the sidelines as the Kings regain
Be* photograph/no* Pooch
the lead after halftime in Monday night's sec-
ond playoff game against the Utah Jazz.
.y
e announcement, w lc
the state news programs, was
widely understood here as a ges-
ture intended to accelerate nego-
tiations on a peaceful settlement
on Kosovo that would bring an
end to NATO's widespread bomb-
ing of Yugoslavia.
The partial withdrawal is in-
tended to be "one more positive
step forward" toward a negotiat-
ed peace settlement, a senior Yu-
goslav official, Goren Matic, said
in an interview Monday.
lie added, "But we cannot al-
ways make such steps without a
response." -
President Clinton said he was
encouraged but said the gesture
fell short of what is needed to end
NATO airstrikes. NATO °Ukiah
immediately said bombing would
continue, and Secretary of Slate
Madeleine Albright called the an-
nouncement "a half measure."
Matic said the Yugoslav gov-
ernment had decided to reduce
its forces in Kosovo to peacetime
Please see KOSOVO, back page, AI!
e ep o
James Sasser, who has not 4
the embassy since the prole'
broke out Saturday, Be(jing i
mended a formal apology for l
U.S. attack, a thorough invetrtif
Lion and punishment for %dee t
sponsible for the attack.
Chine also broke off milita
Lies and other contacts with d
United States and did not si
when they might resume.
At the same time, howeve
Chinese officials triad to resew
jittery American companies tit
their investments and business
would be protected from the ant
American backlash.
President Clinton already hi
written a letter of regret to .Cb
nese President Jiang Zemin ar.
expressed his condolences Stu
day to the families of the Ihn
Chinese killed in the airatrik
Clinton called the bombing as
isolated, tragic mistake." US.*
ficials blamed it on misinform'
tion from CIA planners, erb
Please see CHINA. back pat% Al
State's transit costs put at $116 billion
By Steven A. Capps
and Jon Matthews
Bee Capitol Bureau
A new state survey sets the price tag
for patching up Califurnla'e outdated
transportation network — and expanding
it to meet future needs — at a whopping
$116.5 billion over the next 10 years.
The report from the California Trans-
portation Commission tells the slate's
commuters what most already know:
There are a lot more drivers on the road,
and they're driving a lot more miles.
Over the last three decades, Califor-
nia's population Ilan grown twice as
quickly as the capacity of ita highways
and local roads, the report says. And the
total number of miles driven by Califor-
nians ie growing even faster than the
slate's population.
"We all agree that there is an enor-
mous need, not only for our constituent -
who are stuck in traffic jams far to
much but for the future of the eoononr t'
of the state of California," said Sena(' 8
Republican leader Nose Johnson of Ir
vine as the report was delivered to tie g
Legislature on Monday.
Of the $ 116.5 billion for everythini n
from repairing elate higliwsys to build
' u
Please see ROADS, back page, All u
New weight -loss drug
ave been trapped in steel jaw Luke Mont-
ag -hold traps." gomety, lead-
' Now Brunson wants to give or of rho 1.."
-
INSIDE
0-00031
y+aw+a.
In the letter. whose text was made
public Monday, Albright repeatedly ex-
pressed regret for the embassy bombing.
But she also told the Chinese authori-
ties. that they have an obligation "to en-
sure the safety of all Americans in Chi-
na and protection of American proper-
ties."
Tens of thousands of protesters,
spurred on by the government, have
marched in 20 cities in the past three
days in the biggest protests since the
Tiananmen Square pro -democracy dem-
onstrations in Beijing 10 years ago.
Protesters' emotions were inflamed by
government -run media reports that the
attack on the. Chinese Embassy that
sna►cen between we u.o. ana rsnuan
embassies and shooed away onlookers.
Sasser, the ambassador, said the
weekend protests got almost completely
out of hand. The low point of the ordeal.
he said, came Sunday =ruing when he
and other employees began destroying
sensitive documents in preparation for
abandoning the building, fearing that
raging protesters were about to over-
whelm the double row of police officers
and stream through the gates.
'The crowd was pushing the police
back — they looked tired — and these
Young police were frantically calling for
reinforcements," Sasser said. "We
thought the odds were 50-50 they were
corning in."
Roads: Light -rail system
expansion is on local list
Continued from page Al
ing bike paths and expanding rail
systems, about $26 billion would
be needed just to bring the state's
current transportation system up
to date, according to the Transpor-
tation Commission.
. Senate President Pro Tern John
Bui-ton, D-San Francisco, who car-
ried legislation requiring the
transportation survey, said the
$26 billion would merely "make
our current system function at a
decent level."
"That's not talking expansion.
that's not looking through the
Sears `wish book,' " he said.
'That's filling potholes, replacing
guard rails and repairing broken-
down buses."
The report was compiled by sur-
veying counties. cities and local
transportation agencies. They re-
ported back with lists of needs
that totaled $116.5 billion, includ-
ed $57 billion worth of high -priori-
ty projects arovind the state.
SETTING tr STRAIGHT
A story Monday on Page
B 1 said a lawsuit tiled by
Glen Elder Baptist Church
accused the Rev. Ronnie
Allen and his wife, Gail.
of spending more than
S100,000 in church money
for personal use. The suit
actually contends the couple
used church money and
church property valued at
more than $100,000.
The Sacramento Area Council
of Governments estimated the
backlog of high -priority projects in
Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter and
Yuba counties at more than $2 bil-
lion — $872 . tftillion for highways,
$83 7 million, for urban and com-
muter rail, $488 million for local
streets and $141 million for bike
and pedestrian projects.
Included in the list of local proj-
ects was the extension of Sacra-
mento's light -rail system south
from Meadowview Road to Cal -
vine Road. Money for extending
the system to Meadowview al-
ready has been secured, according
to SACOG.
Tile list also included extending
Richards Boulevard in downtown
Sacramento across Highway 160
to hook up with the Capital City
Freeway.
And on the list of state highway
projects was construction of a new
bridge over the Feather River be-
tween Marysville and Yuba City.
El Dorado County listed high -
priority projects totaling $300 mil-
lion, while Placer County officials
presented a list totaling $+198 mil-
lion. .
The report was released Mon-
day as the state Senate voted 32-8
to approve a preliminary version
ors proposed S 16 billion stateside
transportation borrowing plan.
Supporters acknowledged that
the bond measure still faces major
negotiations, and Republicans
yarned they would prefer that the
state pay for road work without.
long-term borrowing.
Under the bill. SB 315 by Bur-
ton. California voters would be
asked to approve four separate, $4
billion bond measures duriagelea
men, wno were apparer.:
only to prevent an outri g
Most of Monday's proft,
veraity students and fa.
and .some state companit
lowed to send large deleg
strators said that as the!
applied for permisair
embassy, the Publi,
told them when and weer
In a sign of how well th
were staged, representat
ficial religious group:
marched in sequence —
dhist monks, followed by
Tibetan monks; then Tag
Catholic, Protestant and
ers. 1
High -priority statewide
transportation projects
Here is the breakdown of the
states 657 billion in high pnonty
transportation projects over the
next 10 years, according to the
California Transportation
-Commission:
► S23.4 billion for state highways
► S19.4 billion for urban and
commuter rail
► 313 billion for local arteries
► S1.3 billion for bike and
pedestrian projects
tees QAphie
tions in 2000, 2002, 2004 and
2006. The money could be used to
build transportation facilities and
repair or improve existing ones
throughout the state.
Lawmakers of both parties
agreed that the state faces huge
spending needs in transportation.
They said the real work on devel-
oping a transportation improve-
ment plan — and a possible com-
promise — will be done later this
year in a joint Senate -Assembly
conference committee.
Gov. Gray Davis has appointed
a special panel to study Califor-
nia's overall infrastructure needs,
including transportation, and ex-
pects its report to be completed
this summer.
Several Republican senators
said a plan to dedicate existing
money- from the sales tax on gaso-
line to transportation would avoid
risking voter rejection of the
bonds.
If we do the Republican plan.
we don't have to rely on the voters
saying yes," said Sen. Jim Brake.
R-Raneho Cucamonga.
EE : 80 66, ET AUW 90/90d La
CLIFF MADISON
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC.
046073
254-A Maryland Ave., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-9305
Facsimile (202) 543-42y7
TO: Paul Blackwelder - Dave Shepherd
FROM: Cliff Madison
DATE: May 3, 1999
SUBJECT: April 1999 Federal Affairs Report
On Friday, April 2, I met with Congressman Nick Rahall, the
senior Democrat on the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee,
for two hours to discuss any revisions which may take place on TEA
21 -- the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
On Thursday, April 8, I again met with Congressman Rahall to
discuss activities of his Subcommittee. This was for one hour.
On Monday, April 12, I met with Supervisor Mullen and members
of the Nature Conservancy to discuss Riverside County issues. This
was for two hours.
On Tuesday, April 13, I met with .Supervisor Mullen and the
Washington representatives of Riverside County. This was for two
hours.
on Friday, April 16, I met with Congressman Ron Packard for
one hour to discuss transportation appropriations for FY 2000. And
I met with Congressman Ken Calvert for one hour to discuss RCTC
issues.
On Wednesday, April 21, I met with Congressman Jim Oberstar,
the senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee td discuss his Committee's priorities for this Congress.
This was fok one hour.
On Tuesday, April 27, I met with Congressman Jerry Lewis for
one hour to discuss ROTC activities.
On Thursday, April 29, I was asked by Congressman Calvert's
office to assist in scheduling meetings between the Riverside
Monday Morning Group, and Congressman Jim Oberstar, and Congressman
Bud Shuster, the Chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
On Friday, April 30, I met with Congressman Ron Packard to
discuss RCTC funding issues. This was for one hour. I also met
with Congressman Nick Rahall for one hour to discuss surface
transportation issues.
000032
T 0 - cd
.LA00
NOS ICE W
60 : L T
N O W 6 6—£
—JlaW
Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999
Bill Number/Author:
AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D-Eureka)
Introduced December 7, 1998
Amended April 27, 1999
Subject: State Rail Freight
Study
Status:
Summary:
Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 15-4 on
April 19, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee — no hearing date yet.
As introduced, AB 74 would have rendered a specific rail freight operation (North Coast
Railroad Authority) eligible for State Intercity Rail funding. After recent amendments
the bill now simply requires Caltrans, in conjunction with the California Transportation
Commission, to develop a State Freight Rail Plan. The plan shall be developed through a
study which includes the following:
1. Environmental aspect, including land use and community aspects.
2. Financing issues, including a means to obtain state and federal transportation funds.
3. Rail issues, including regional, intrastate and interstate issues.
4. Intemodal connections, including seaports and intermodal terminals.
5. Current system deficiencies.
6. Service objectives, such as improving efficiency, accessibility, and safety, and
enhancing branch lines.
7. New technology, including logistics and process improvement.
8. Light density rail line analyses, including traffic density, track characteristics, project
selection criteria, and cost -benefit criteria.
Staff Comments:
Based on the fact that permitting freight operations to apply for funds relied on by the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, would unnecessarily cause taxpaying rail
passengers to compete with non -passenger service for funding to support their daily
commute, both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) adopted an "oppose" position to AB 74
when introduced.
However, in light of the recent amendments to AB 74, staff recommends changing the
current position from "Oppose" to "Watch." The bill currently offers no positive or
negative impact upon either RCTC or SANBAG.
Staff Recommendation: WATCH
o:\ab74-dws.doc
000033
Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999
Bill Number/Author:
AB 923 (Wally Hertzberg, D- Los Angeles)
Introduced February 25, 1999
Amended April 28, 1999
Subject: Would Increase the Fines for Rail Right of Way Violations.
Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee On
May 10, 1999.
Summary:
AB 923 would do the following:
1. Increases the base fine for failing to stop at a rail crossing to $100, and provides that
subsequent violations be fined as follows:
a) Up to $200 for a second offense.
b) Up to $250 for a third or subsequent offense.
2. Removes the restrictions that limit subsequent fines to a one-year period, so a second -
time offender can be charged the maximum $200 fine, even if their first offence was
more than one year ago.
3. Allocates the first 30% of the fine collected to the transit district if a rail crossing
offense occurred at a rail crossing on the district's transit lines. However, if there
is no rail transportation provided in that area by a transit district, then the entire
amount of the. fine and fees collected shall be deposited into the various city, county
and state funds
Staff Comments:
Rail crossing violations have increased dramatically over the past few years. Since the
beginning of Metrolink service, approximately 15,000 citations were issued for grade
crossing violations. Further, since its service began in 1992, there have been 74
accidents, resulting in 16 fatalities and 38 injuries. AB 923 is an effort to prevent the
proliferation of such incidents and to provide a funding source for further
educational/prevention efforts to make the public aware of the dangers associated with
violating rail right -of way.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT
000034
o: \ab923-dws.doc
Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999
Bill Number/Author: AB 1475 (Nell Soto, D- Pomona)
Introduced February 26, 1999
Subject: Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation
Safety Funding to School Safety Programs.
Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —5 on
April 13, 1999. Placed on Assembly Appropriations
Suspense File
Summary:
Designates a portion of federal transportation safety funding apportioned to the state
under the federal Hazard Elimination/Safety (HES) program to be used by local
governments to improve school area safety by installing new crosswalks, building bicycle
paths and lanes, constructing sidewalks where none exist, and implementing traffic
calming programs in neighborhoods around schools. Specifically, this bill
reformulates the existing 50-50 HES program split between the state and local agencies
and splits the HES money one-third each to state, locals, and the Safe Routes to School
Program (SRSP).
Staff Comments:
Since this bill redirects existing resources, it would reduce the money available to state
and local agencies for safety improvements to streets and highways. The total of the
state's safety projects in the current SHOPP ranges from $50 million to $100 million per
year. The SHOPP program receives approximately $30 million in federal HES funds.
Under this bill, that amount would be reduced to approximately $20 million.
Because there would be a reduction in the amount of money available to fund these
programs, the reduction would have to be replaced by other funding, perhaps from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The amount of money directed to
local agencies for safety improvements would also be reduced to $20 million.
In addition, this bill would call for many small projects from various entities around the
state, and could prove to be inefficient. This bill would further divide existing
transportation monies and reduce the flexibility set up under SB 45 (Kopp), Chapter 622,
Statutes of 1997. This bill would earmark money.for the SRSP instead of allowing local
transportation agencies to decide which safety projects should be given the highest
priority. This bill would also require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to
reprogram existing money since the CTC has programmed the money through 2004.
Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making
programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state
highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important
that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that
00 035
authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility
that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
000036
Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999
Bill Number/Author:
AB 1612 (Dean Florez, D- Shafter)
Introduced February 26, 1999
Amended April 6, 1999
Subject: Would Allocate $300 lvrllion of State Highway Account
Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads.
Status:
Summary:
Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —3 on
April 13, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee — No Hearing Date Yet.
AB 1612 would do the following:
1. Appropriate from the State Highway Account (SHA) in the State Transportation Fund
to the Controller $200 million in FY 1999-2000 and $100 million in 2000-2001 for
allocation to counties (50 percent) and to cities (50 percent) repair of local streets and
highways.
2. Allocate 75 percent of the funds payable to counties on the basis of the proportion of
registered vehicles to county population, and the remaining 25 percent on the basis of
the proportion of county road mileage to total county road mileage statewide.
3. Allocate the funds payable to cities on the basis of the proportion of the city
population to cities' population statewide.
4. Require recipient cities and counties to maintain existing levels of general fund
expenditures for streets and highways.
5. Authorize recipient cities and counties, subject to the maintenance of effort
requirement, to spend these funds for transportation purposes in addition to street and
highway reconstruction and to repair of storm damage to local streets and highways.
6. Specify procedures to prevent the commingling of funds received and deposited.
7. Require recipient cities and counties to comply with all force account and bidding
requirements under current law.
OLA37
o:\ab1612-dws.doc
8. Require recipient cities and counties to expend these funds within one fiscal year of
their receipt, and requires the return of unexpended -funds to the Controller for
reallocation to other cities and counties.
Senator Rainey ( R — Walnut Creek), has introduced SB 10 which is exactly the same bill
as AB 1612. However, after conversations with the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) has decided not to pursue SB 10.
Staff Comments:
The state and regional approach to the planning, programming, and financing of local
transportation needs was reformed only last year by SB 45. The funding AB 1612 would
provide bypasses the accountability safeguards and competitive scrutiny applied to STIP
projects by regional transportation agencies under SB 45.
The key question posed by this bill is whether the proposed transfer of funds from the
State Highway Account (SHA) would endanger both federal funding and already
approved programs prioritized under the STIP, or whether instead SHA funds may be
used for the important short-term purposes of this bill without adversely affecting
projects for which SHA funds already are committed.
Caltrans reports that this bill would significantly deplete interregional funds available to
meet statewide needs in the 1998 and 2000 STIPs, and would result in the
deprogramming of approximately $88 mijlion in adopted STIP projects in FY 2000-01.
Moreover, because the funds transferred under this measure would be diverted largely
from federal matching programs yielding federal matching shares in excess of 80 percent,
this bill could translate into the loss to the 'state of millions of dollars in federal funding.
In discussions with staff, the CTC staff indicates much the same as Caltrans and states
that at a minimum currently programmed STIP projects will be delayed. As the
SANBAG board discussed during its review of the 1998 STIP augmentation, if $300
were to be redirected to local street repair, some portion of the I-215 project would incur
delays.
Because the STIP process is relatively new, most projects budgeted under STIP are still
in their early, least costly stages. Many projects yet in their engineering and design
phases soon will progress to far more costly construction and implementation phases,
thereby drawing much more intensely on funds seemingly bottled up in the current SHA
balance.
In the case of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Each governing body, the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) considered street repair and maintenance when
oe glad
bk4{SI doc
reviewing options for the 1998 STEP Augmentation. RCTC chose to allocate $15 million
(well above what would be received from the $300 million allocation statewide) to a call
for projects for local street repairs. Part of the RCTC action included language stating
that should an effort to acquire additional funding "off -the -top" of the State Highway
Account be successful, the $15 million would be reprogrammed to other projects.
SANBAG chose to maintain it's current priorities (I-215 and SR 30) and not make any
special allocations for street repairs. AB 1612 wouldnegate the actions of ROTC and
SANBAG and likely would require a reprogramming of STIP funds, and therefore,
produce delays in project delivery.
Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making
programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state
highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important
that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that
authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility
that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area and not biased in
favor of those that are owned and operated by cities and counties versus those that are
owned and operated by transit operators or Ca!trans.
Statewide $500 million of the $1.5 billion STIP augmentation has been programmed -
$200 million of which is programmed for local street repair projects; the CTC expects
that at least 30% of the remaining billion will be programmed for local street
maintenance projects. Thus, statewide, cities and counties will have already in excess of
$300 million — leading staff to conclude that AB 1612 is a "double-dipping" effort.
Without question, the need for street repair is significant and such projects have difficulty
competing against capacity increasing pOjects in the STIP process. For that reason, the
RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program specifically states the two agencies' goal to seek
funding for local street repairs from a state source "other than the State Highway
Account." AB 16f2 conflicts with that goal.
Staff' Recommendation:
OPPOSE
,.� 0C 3033
o:bb1612-dws.doc
Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999
Bill Number/Author: SB 1277 (Tom Hayden. D- Los Angeles)
Introduced February 25, 1999
Amended April 7. 1999
Subject: Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the
Jurisdiction of the Departmentof Parks and Recreation, the
Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies.
Status: Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee
5-3 May 13,1999. Set for Hearing in the Senate'
Appropriations Committee May 17, 1999.
Summary:
This bill would prohibit construction of roads in lands under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state
conservancies. This prohibition would not apply to roads necessary for the maintenance
and use of the protected lands, to fire roads and to roads for utilities.
Staff Comments:
Clearly, the intent of the author in pursuing SB 1277 is to protect certain lands from
transportation (road) development due to the negative environmental impact such
development may bring. Nevertheless, there currently exists an exhaustive
environmental review process and requirements for significant mitigation of any negative
environmental impact a transportation project may have.
Further, the bill relates to lands under the jurisdiction of two state departments and their
related state conservancies. Such jurisdiction covers a vast amount of land. This bill
could have the affect of stopping several future transportation projects which have
already been planned, reviewed and mitigated for.
In Riverside County, a recently initiated comprehensive planning process combining, the
County General Plan, Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and transportation
corridor planning known as the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability
Process (CETAP) is underway. The CETAP process attempts to coordinate all
significant levels of planning. This is a local process which includes all levels of
government and will include all the requisite environmental reviews before proceeding
with construction. It is possible that any projects arising out of the CETAP process have •
an impact on San Bernardino County as well. Further, the Four Corners study efforts
areas in Chino Hills that could be negatively impacted by the prohibitions in SB 1277.
By prohibiting all road construction on any land under the jurisdiction of two large state
departments, SB 1277 fails to recognize the local planning and review process currently
existing.
Further, with the advent of SB 45 (Kopp, Statutes, 1998) transportation planning
decisions are largely under the purview of local governing bodies and these decisions are
made through an open deliberative process which SB 1277 would prevent from having
any relevance.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE
o:\sb1277-dws.doc
%J J040
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Norm King, Executive Director, SANBAG
SUBJECT:
Eval.uation/Savings of RCTC/SANBAG Due to Shared Director of
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs
Background
Beginning in August 1998, the RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs position was filled. The first seven months of this position's
existence have brought to light the many benefits, challenges and cost savings
associated with this approach to government relations. Each of these can be
described in terms of their relationships to: RCTC/SANBAG Board members,
Legislators, the Executive Directors, staff and the public.
Board Members
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are both in a unique situation of having nearly
completed the program for each of their local transportation sales tax measures,
having their expirations within a year of each other, and being faced with the largest
growth for any two counties in the State. This unique situation dictates that the
transportation commission for each county work closely with each other on policy,
planning and financial endeavors. The board of each agency seems to appreciate the
cooperation and additional understanding of each other's activities that has arisen
from the shared position. The shared position also enables each agency to receive
significant cost savings. The shared position has resulted in a total savings of
$132,130 in public dollars - these costs include fully burdened staff salary and travel
costs. These savings are certainly appreciated by each board.
Legislators
The RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs has been
able to communicate the close working relationship of the two agencies to local
businesses, State Legislators, Congressional Representatives and other interested
parties not only with the very existence of the position, but also with a demonstrable
knowledge of the operations of each agency. This communication has helped to
solidify the two county area as a single region working towards the common goal of
responding to current and future transportation needs of the area. This is particularly
appreciated by the two bi-county legislative districts (Senate District 31, represented
0 �041
.� J
by Senate Brulte and Assembly District 65, represented by Assemblyman Brett
Granlund) in the area. Reapportionment may produce more such districts - which will
add further value to the shared position.
Significant also is the ability of one individual to benefit from the relationships and
contacts that come from working for each county transportation commission. In both
Sacramento and Washington, D.C., these relationships and contacts have proven to
benefit the goals of each agency. Further; this is a two-way street; elected officials
and their staffs appreciate the ability to garner information about either county from
a single point of contact who is knowledgeable about the activities of each agency.
Executive Directors
Both Executive Directors have received numerous positive comments on the approach
of the shared position. Each Executive Director has appreciated the benefits arising
from the coordination the position is able to facilitate.
As expected; the challenges relating to the position as a shared one, are primarily
logistical. Generally, no committee or board meetings present any scheduling
conflicts that cannot be worked around. However, the nature of the position requires
a great deal of travel (mostly to Sacramento) which necessitates the Director of
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs to be absent from a larger number of board
and/or committee meetings than normally would be the case. The same is true for
staff and other related meetings. This absence has not resulted in any noticeable
decrease in productivity or the quality of performance. Rather, it is something that
must be accepted and requires the flexibility of both agencies' staffs and board
members.
More importantly than the natural meeting conflicts, to date, no conflicts regarding
policy positions of -either board have risen - nor do any appear to be rising in the
future. The ability of both boards to adopt coordinated policy positions relating to
legislation is a positive indicator of the value and benefit to maintaining the shared.
position's existence.
Another challenge associated with the shared position is the management of the State
and Federal advocate contracts. While both RCTC and SANBAG are represented in
Sacramento by the same firm (Smith and Kempton), that is not the case for the
advocates in Washington, D.C. While each agency is represented at a highly
competent level, this difference requires the Director of Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs to spend a substantially greater amount of time communicating
with each agency's respective advocate than normally would be the case. The result
is a loss in efficiency and some minor costs that could be avoided if the agencies had
the same advocate in Washington, D.C.
►�04
While having two advocates in Washington, D.D. does present certain challenges,
they are not without benefits. Each firm has it's own special relationships and
contacts that are useful to both agencies. Thus, the Director of Intergovernmental
and Legislative Affairs is able to benefit from this information much in the same
manner mentioned above relative to extensive contacts in each county.
Staff
The staff of both agencies have found value in the shared position's existence. The
position has served well .to facilitate coordination between the two agencies. The
position has also helped to eliminate duplicate meeting attendance by enabling one
individual, rather than two (one from each agency) to attend various meetings -
locally, in Sacramento, and elsewhere.
Below is an analysis of the cost savings associated with RCTC and SANBAG sharing
the position of the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs.
The primary costs associated with the position as an individual staff person used for
this analysis are fully burdened staff costs (not including indirect costs due to
difficulty extracting this number) and travel costs by the individual. I spoke with
Dean Martin, RCTC and Susan Van Note, SANBAG to obtain the numbers referenced
below.
Staff Costs
Past RCTC Full Burdened Staff Costs
Past SANBAG Fully Burdened Staff Costs
Current RCTC/SANBAG Fully Burdened
Individual Staff Cost for RCTC and SANBAG
0108,870 divided by 2)
$1 17,000
$112,109
$108, 870
$ 54,435
Travel Costs (It is important to note that due to the position at SANBAG not being
filled from March 1998 through July 1998 and the current fiscal year not being
complete, an estimate of $2,000 was added to the totals for March 1998 and March
1999 to provide a more accurate representation).
Past RCTC Travel
Past SANBAG Travel
Current RCTC/SANBAG Travel
Individual Staff Cost for RCTC and SANBAG
($6,000 divided by 2)
$ 9,000
$ 9,000
$ 6,000
$ 3,000
Savings Related to Travel
RCTC $ 6,000
SANBAG $ 6,000
O3343
Savings Related to Staff Costs
RCTC $ 62,565
SANBAG $ 57,565
Total Savings Associated with Shared Position
RCTC $ 68,565
SANBAG $ 63,565
Total Public Dollars Saved $132,130
Public
For the public, the shared position has many of the same benefits associated with
those attributed to legislators. Like legislators, the public appreciates both one point
of contact and the significant cost savings mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
As with any newly created position, this one does not come without its difficulties.
Most of these are logistical and certainly are manageable. On the whole, the shared
position is having a positive impact on each agency, both financially and in terms of
perception of the boards of each agency, each Executive Director, elected
representatives in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., staff and the public.
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
That the Commission approve continuation of the shared position of Director of
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs.
0 3044
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Mike Davis, Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Request for Proposal for the Pedley Station Security System Design
At the April 14, 1999 RCTC meeting, .the Commission directed Staff to prepare a
request for proposal (RFP) from qualified consultants that can prepare the plans,
specifications, and cost estimate for the Pedley Metrolink rail station security system
and connect the system back to the Riverside Downtown Station monitoring facility.
The RFP was issued on April 16, 1999 and Proposals were due at RCTC on May 14,
1999. Only two (2) Proposals were received. One proposal was received late and
contained a cost that was sixty percent above the estimated cost and the other was
non -responsive to the criteria as specified in the RFP.
It is believed that the reason for such a poor response to the RFP was due to the fact
that firms that typically develop rail station security systems do "Design -Build"
contracts and the RFP as issued was strictly for Design only. Staff investigated
whether or not RCTC could enter into a Design -Build contract for development of the
Pedley Metrolink rail station security system and found that it could not be done
without jeopardizing federal funding for construction of the project.
Based on the results of the proposals received and the fact that this is not a time
constrained project, Staff is proposing that the RFP be reissued. Staff will attempt
to reach out to a larger group of consultants with the expectation of receiving a
greater participation and better quality proposals. A selection panel will be
established to review the proposals, short list the,firms that submit proposals, and
report back to the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to
complete the work. The selection panel will be comprised of RCTC and Bechtel Staff.
0045
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
estimated cost is $30,000 {to be determined after selection
process is complete.
Source of Funds
$776,250 of FTA Section 9 or CMAQ funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
v
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
n
Financial Impact Not Applicable
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission direct Staff to reject the proposals received under the present
request for proposals and reissue the RFP for the security system at the Pedley
Metrolink Station. A selection panel will be established to review the proposals
received, short list the firms that submit proposals if necessary, and report back to
the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to complete the
work. The selection panel will be comprised of RCTC, Bechtel Staff and any other
- interested agency participants.
000046
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2,1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission •
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy•Executive Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director •
SUBJECT:
Request Commission Authorization to Proceed with a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to Start the Process to Acquire Temporary Construction
Easements (TCE's) by Eminent Domain Required for the
Construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South Side of State
Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets in the City of
Riverside.
At the May RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for
construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of Route 91, between
Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. The project was advertised
starting on May 22, 1999 and bids are due on June 17, 1999. Construction of the
project is anticipated to start approximately at the beginning of September, 1999.
The new sound wall will be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall
foundation located adjacent to the Ca!trans right-of-way line. This will necessitate
the acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) to allow for construction
activities such as: clearing the construction area of vegetation, erection of temporary
fencing, removal of the existing access control fences, and construction of the new
sound wall. There are 24 TCEs required for the project, which are further described
in Exhibit "A". The TCEs are situated along the back or side of each of the properties
that are along and adjacent to the project. The easements are a rectangular strip of
property, 1 meter in width. The TCEs are contained in an alley. The alley is at the
back of each of the properties and runs the full length of the project. The property
owners will be given a 30 day written notice by the contractor prior to start of
construction. The Temporary Construction Easements will be obtained for a period of
one (1) year starting on the 31 st day after the contractor's written notice.
The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way
acquisition agent for the Commission in the acquisition of the 24 Temporary
Construction Easements required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for
the County have, for the past month, been contacting the property owners and
negotiated fees to acquire the temporary construction easements. In light of the
planned project schedule, if the Commission fails to obtain any of the 24 temporary
0 �4
construction easements by voluntary acquisition, the Commission may have to
consider adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire these temporary construction
easements by eminent domain.
Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person
whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last
equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, a Notice of Intent and reasonable opportunity
to appear and be heard on:
(1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
(2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least
private injury;
(3) whether the acquisition of the temporary construction easements are
necessary for the project;
(4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction
easements have been made.
Note: The value of the property is not an issue at the hearing.
The Notice of Intent must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the
Commission to consider the adoption of the resolution, the right of each person to
appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written report to
appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission
must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15
days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard.
If authorized by the Commission, the required Notice of Intent will be mailed to the
property owners on June 3, 1999 andthe hearing date will be set for the July 14,
1999 Commission meeting.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$60,000 (Total cost for acquisition of all 24 TCE's.)
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Measure "A"
::i4::f::E�:3:s:
r
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Ou0045
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission authorize staff to proceed with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to start
the process to acquire the Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) by Eminent
Domain required for the construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South side of State
Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. Staff will
continue with the negotiation process with each of the property owners to make
every effort to obtain the Temporary Construction Easements by voluntary
acquisition. If negotiations with the property owner cannot be concluded to allow the
project to start in a timely manner, staff will then request that the Commission
consider adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire these Temporary Construction
Easements by eminent domain.
000040
EXHIBIT "A"
ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL #98 PROJECT
REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
PARCEL
GRANTOR
1
17423-1
Hung Le Dung
2
17424-1
Daniel B. Felix
3
17425-1
Richard A. Merlin .
4
17426-1
Paul A. Simmons
5
17427-1
Geral R. Unruh
6
17428-1
Juan N. Feliz
7
17429-1
Zacarias Murillo
8
17430-1
Carlos Jimenez
9
17431-1
Wenchi Wang
10
17432-1
Jose A. Gonzales
11
17433-1
Louise A. Barrera
12
17434-1
Louise A. Barrera
13
17435-1
Cal Fed Bank
14
17436-1
OCWEN Fed Bank
15
17437-1
Jose A. Gonzales
16
17438-1
RV Housing Dev.
17
17439-1
Juven Castro
18
17440-1
Michael T. O'Brien
19
17441-1
Mtn States Mtg.
20
17442-1
Jesus O. Tuazon
21
17443-1
Jesua O. Tuazon
22
17444-1
Stephen Hendrich; Dermott
23
17445-1
Clifton Harold Sawyers
24
17446-1
Secretary of HUD
OU305U
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE: .
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans & Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Mike Davis, Bechtel Environmental Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award of Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a
Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10
and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215.
At the January RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized a $100,000 study to
assess the feasibility of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide
better North/South connectivity between the 1-10 and State Route 60 corridors
between 1-15 and 1-215. The City of Fontana in conjunction with the San Bernardino
Association of Governments (SANBAG) have each taken board actions to for funding
allocations that would share in the cost of the study. The current proposal is that the
funding be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis and that the SANBAG
50% share be further split between SANBAG and the City of Fontana. RCTC will be
the lead agency for the project with agency participation from both the City of
Fontana and SANBAG. Development team members will also include planners from
the County of Riverside, Caltrans and adjacent cities.
At the March RCTC meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare and advertise
a Request for Proposal (RFP) to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South
Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215.
The calendar of events were as follows:
Distribution of RFP
Proposers Conference
Proposals delivered to RCTC
Short Listed Firms Notified
Interviews of Short Listed Firms
April 1, 1999
April 15, 1999
April 22, 1999
April 30, 1999
May 11, 1999
Staff received proposals from five (5) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which
consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans, SANBAG, the City of
Fontana, and the County of Riverside. The selection panel reviewed the five (5)
proposals and short listed three (3) of the five (5) firms.
0 0051
All three (3) firms presented teams that would be capable of completing the proposed
scope of work. After consideration of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the
project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3)
interviewed firms as follows:
Top Ranked Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc.
Second Parsons Brinckerhoff
Third VRPA Technologies
After Meyer, Mohaddes was selected as the top ranked firm, their cost proposal was
opened. The Meyer, Mohaddes scope of work and cost proposal is attached for
Commission review. Meyer, Mohaddes proposed to perform the attached scope of
work to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10
and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867. Staff reviewed the
Meyer, Mohaddes scope of work and respective cost proposal and found it to be
reasonable to complete the proposed scope of work. The RCTC model consultant
agreement will be used.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$ 99, 867.00
Source of Funds
$50,000 (RCTC Measure A) + $50,000 (SANBAG/City of
Fontana)
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
n
Year
Included in Program -Budget
n
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a
Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between
1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867 to Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc. There is no
extra work for this agreement. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used
for this agreement.
063052
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
SCOPE OF WORK
Understanding of the Project and Overall Approach
Capacity deficiencies and the related congestion problems in the north -south project corridor between the
I-15 and I-215 freeways have confronted area residents, commuters and agencies for many years. The lack
of adequate north -south traffic capacity in this area has resulted in exacerbation of traffic congestion
problems on the existing few connecting arterials as well as both freeways, which have to absorb the
overflow traffic. The traffic problems affect both residents of the immediate area and the longer distance
commuters on the area freeways. In the area between the I-15 and I-215, the I-10 and SR-60 freeways carry
over 160,000 and 83,000 daily two-way trips, respectively. This means that the broader east -west corridor
in this area carries nearly 250,000 two-way daily trips generating a large desire to connect between the two
east -west freeways.
Faced with these problems, the two counties' agencies and the area's jurisdictions have done considerable
research and planning to evaluate existing congestion problems and to identify potential alternative solutions.
These efforts; however, will culminate in the subject project. The ultimate mission of this project will be
to take the most balanced and comprehensive look at the north -south mobility needs in this corridor. In order
for this project to be successful, a number of objectives must be met:
• The levels of existing mobility problems in the corridor must be quantified
• The patterns of traffic movement in the corridor, and the "users" of the corridor's limited
number of existing facilities must be identified
• The true or "unconstrained" future demand in the corridor must be quantified
• A balanced solution should be developed for corridor's mobility problems; given the extent of
the corridor, the capacity improvements must be placed in the most appropriate location
• The recommended corridor improvements must be realistic and implementable, and acceptable
by all "stakeholders"
. Given the number of variables involved and the corridor combinations, it is fortunate that the project will
have the full benefit of using the CTP model for its technical evaluation. Having been involved with many
recent projects in the Inland Empire, MMA staff have complete familiarity with this model and its
capabilities. As will be discussed in our detailed scope of work, we tiave proposed to identify and isolate
an overall project study area to help compare and evaluate alternative mobility improvement scenarios. This
technique, which has been successfully used in many area/corridor studies, allows for a comprehensive
evaluation of mobility improvements using specific performance indicators such as: overall average speeds,
delay, areawide levels of congestion, vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, etc.
When analyzing the future conditions, it is very likely that without any improvements, the highway system
in the corridor will be so congested that a "no -project" model run will not show the true travel demand in
the corridor. Another technique, which we have proposed is to conduct an "unconstrained" demand run to
"bring out" and identify the true future north -south demand in the coridor and plan for improvements
appropriately.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
T 003053
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
Finally, regardless of a high quality, defensible technical analysis, it is vital that all aspects of the
recommended solutions be properly identified. These include environmental and cost issues, traffic diversion
impacts on other facilities, as well as acceptability of the solutions to local residents and all jurisdictions.
Work Tasks
The following scope of work has been developed to provide a step-by-step program for the North -South .
Corridor Feasibility Study. It includes all the required tasks outlined in the Attachment "B", Scope of
Services in the Request for Proposals and describes the specific features of the technical approach our team
has developed for this project. Where applicable, each task is further broken down into relevant subtasks
to clarify the proposed technical efforts.
Task 1.0 Project Initiation and Data Collection
• Proiect Kickoff and Scope Refinement. The consultant team will meet with RCTC, SANBAG,
City of Fontana and City of Rialto staff to review the project scope and proposed detailed
methodologies. Agency staff comments will be received and incorporated into a final scope of
work. Proposed project deadlines, milestones, and deliverables will be reviewed and finalized.
The specifics of travel forecast development and modeling will be discussed with SCAG and
other agency staff and appropriate agreements will be developed.
• Meet with Agencies. Consultant team members will meet with staffs from all involved agencies
and jurisdictions, including RCTC, SANBAG, City of Fontana, City of Rialto, Riverside
County, San Bernardino County, Caltrans, and other agencies, as appropriate to discuss and
document staff views on existing mobility problems in the corridor area, any sensitive
environmental and community issues, and to collect all relevant available data and previous
studies.
• Review Previous Studies. All studies relevant to the corridor area will be reviewed and
pertinent information will be summarized. These include the Sierra/Cedar Traffic Relief
Corridor study, Sierra Avenue interchange improvement plans, City/County general plan
circulation elements, as -built street improvement plans, land use maps, etc.
• Prepare Base Mapping for the Corridor. Using USGS quad maps, and aerial photographs,
which will be flown specifically for this project, the team will develop base maps for the entire
corridor area at the most appropriate scale for performing the alignment and constraints analysis
as part of this project.
Products:
flUi 054
Collect Traffic Counts. All available recent daily and peak hour traffic counts within the
corridor area will be collected from agencies. It is assumed that the available data will be
supplemented by new daily (ADT) counts along the corridor area. at all major north -south
crossings and key east -west locations. Peak hour counts will also be collected at key
intersections. A maximum of 15 ADT counts and 5 AM and PM peak hour intersection counts
are assumed to be collected to supplement existing data, as part of this project.
• Finalized Project Scope of Work
• Summary of Previous Studies and Key Issues
• Corridor Base Maps and Aerial Photos
• Existing Traffic Count Data Base (counted and obtained)
Meyer,_Mohaddes Associates
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
Task 2.0 Existing Conditions/Setting
2.1 Definition of the Corridor and Study Area. One of the key initial tasks will be to precisely
define the project study area and its boundaries for analysis purposes throughout the
project. This will also be important for the subsequent analysis of the mobility indicators.
The definition of the study area will be based on discussions with agencies and review of
travel patterns within the broader area.
2.2 Obtain and Refine CTP Model. The RIVSAN CTP model network and zonal structure for
the project area will be obtained from SCAG's Inland Empire office and will be reviewed
for accuracy of existing conditions as well as future base (funded) conditions. The graphic
on the next page shows the base year CTP model network in the corridor area. It can be
seen that the model network includes a fairly good representation of all facilities currently
traversing the corridor, which should be appropriate for modeling needs of this project.
Based on the review, recommendations will be made to refine and/or correct the network
representations in tenors of facility connections, link capacities and length, and zone
structure, as appropriate, to develop a more precise, focused CTP model for use
specifically in this project. As an option, to expedite the process, network changes can be
made by consultant staff and transmitted electronically to SCAG for application, which
is the method we are currently using',on a number of projects. In order to be able to
summarize relevant mobility statistics for the overall study area (as defined in 2.1), all of
the study area facilities will be given a special code in the network. These mobility
statistics, which will be used later in the project to evaluate the performance and
effectiveness of the various alternatives, will include: average speeds, overall miles of
congestion, delay, vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), etc.
2.3 Existing Mobility Problems. The existing traffic operating conditions within the defined
corridor study area will be analyzed and described. This will include a description of
major travel patterns and the users of the corridor utilizing a select link analysis from the
CTP model. In addition, existing daily link volumes, peak hour volumes at key
intersection, and operating ' conditions will be analyzed and described based on
volume/capacity and levels of service analysis. All other perceived mobility problems in
the study area, as identified by the agency staff in .Task 1 will be described. The existing
model will be run to produce summary statistics about the current overall operating
conditions of the study area.
2.4 Corridor -wide Engineering Constraints. Aerial photo reconnaissance will be conducted
along proposed corridors, documenting existing conditions and constraints. The photo
reconnaissance, as -built data and aerial photos will be used to compile an inventory of
existing features, constraints and issues from an engineering perspective. This inventory
will define, qualitatively, general topography, land use, and potential for connectivity to
adjacent roadways along the study corridors.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
003055
saueq Jo JagwnN LIPM
>1210MAN AMNON dl0 8V3A 3SVE1 Valti103rOdd
'all/ `sNe.100sst? SOpp 1/00/ Yo,foiy
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
2.5 Corridor -wide Environmental Constraints. A preliminary environmental evaluation of the
overall study corridor will be conducted. The focus of the evaluation will be on the
identification of fatal flaws for the proposed circulation improvements. The analysis will
use the environmental checklist from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. The discussion of environmental effects will be based on review of existing
literature and site visits. A brief explanation for all checklist answers will be included to
provide Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) with an understanding of
how the conclusions were reached: The result of the analysis would provide the RCTC
with an understanding• of the issues that would arise during the preparation of the
environmental documentation and the type of technical studies that would be required
Products: • Technical Memorandum on the Existing Setting of the project area and current
mobility problems, engineering constraints and environmental issues. (Note: this
memorandum will be formatted for easy incorporation into future environmental
documents).
• Refined and Focused CTP Model for Project Study Area
Task 3.0 Identify Future Mobility Needs
3.1 Identify Future Base System. With input from RCTC, SANBAG and the Cities, the
consultant team will identify the future base system assumptions for the horizon year of
the project. It is assumed that the horizon year will be 2020. All funded projects and those
with good chance of funding will be identified. These include arterial and freeway mixed -
flow and high occupancy vehicle projects.
• 3.2 Identify Future Problems. The CTP model will be run to identify the future operating
conditions and levels of service assuming only implementation of the base system defined
in the previous subtask. 'This will provide information about the future levels of
congestion and mobility without any further transportation improvements in the corridor.
Levels of service analysis will include link level and system -wide performance indicator
analysis, as well an analysis of key intersections. It should be noted that currently, the
adopted future year forecast. for the CTP model is 2015. The 2020 forecasts are in
development but are not yet complete. Based on our discussions with SCAG staff, it does
not appear that the 2020 model will be ready in time for this project. To overcome this;
in coordination with SCAG and SANBAG, MMA has recently employed adjustment
techniques to develop 2020 forecasts by extrapolating the model's 2015 projections for use
in the City of Fontana's I-10 PSR/PR projects. It is proposed that, in case the 2020 model
is not available, similar methods be used to develop 2020 forecasts for this project.
3.3 Develop Mobility Goals. Based on an analysis of the future mobility problems, with input
from agency staffs, the consultant team will develop a set of mobility goals for the corridor
area. The goals will be either by facility (e.g., no worse than a certain LOS for all
facilities) or by corridor -wide performance indicators (e.g.; overall V/C, average speeds
or delay no worse than a certain level). These goals will be used to develop alternative
transportation improvements. The consultant team, with input from agency staff, will also
develop a set of performance criteria to evaluate and compare the improvement
alternatives.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
00057
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
3.4 Identify Future Demand. Before alternative improvements are developed and tested, it will
be important to find out what the true travel demand may be in the corridor. We propose
to conduct one additional "unconstrained" model run, where a high capacity (say
expressway facility) is assumed in the corridor. The results of this model run will provide
information about the level of true travel demand in the corridor, the extent of needed
future north -south capacity improvements in the corridor, and the potential level of
benefits to existing parallel facilities.
Products:
• Technical memorandum on identified future mobility problems and capacity needs
in the corridor area.
Task 4.0 Develop Alternatives
4.1 Develop Alternative Improvements. Based on the results of the previous task, including
the identified future congestion problems and capacity deficiencies in the overall corridor
and on individual facilities, the identified travel demand, and mobility goals, the consultant
team will identify a series of traffic capacity improvements in the corridor area. At a
minimum, all of the identified corridors in the RFP will be examined. These, which were
developed collectively by the City of Fontana, RCTC and SANBAG, include: Sierra -
Valley Way, Mulberry -Country Village. Cedar-Rubidoux, Poplar -Pyrite, Alder -Market or
Armstrong, and Sierra -Pacific. The graphic on the next page illustrates these presently
identified potential connections and capacity improvements. It should be pointed out that
most of these identified corridors are gap closures and connections of existing facilities
on the opposite sides of the Jurupa Hills to create new continuous arterial corridors. Data
on traffic flow patterns, from previous tasks, and the issue of logical geographic
connections will be considered in developing the final list of corridors. In addition to
these alternatives, the team will examine the possibility of capacity improvements along
the existing continuous facilities, with consideration for identified engineering and
environmental constraints. Select link runs will be conducted on the results of the model
runs in the previous task to identify the users of the corridor, to see whether the travelers
are mostly local trips or long distance commuters. This will help in identifying the levels
of capacity need and best locations of appropriate capacity improvements.
4.2 Conceptual Alignments. Based on capacity and lane requirements derived from the traffic
modeling and demand analysis, the team will develop one (1) conceptual alignment
alternative for each corridor under study. Each alternative will include a conceptual
roadway cross section, and horizontal and vertical alignments. Given the generally hilly
topography of the project area, it is proposed that USGS mapping be used as the basis for
developing conceptual vertical alignments. It is proposed that the conceptual plans be
developed in AutoCAD Version 14 at'a scale of 1"=50' horizontal, 1"=10' vertical.
4.2 Development of Modeling Scenarios. The conceptual alternatives will be presented to the
advisory committee for an initial consideration. Comments will be received and possible
changes and adjustments will be made to the developed alignments and/or cross sections.
The team, with input from the agency staff, will develop and finalize a series of corridor
improvement scenarios. These will include individual improvements or grouping of
potential improvements as "packages" to be modeled.
Meyer, Mohaddes• Associates
OUL)05.5
OEIIZ 1, am a04aa00Wkla00011Od00%.0
sapua8drf4 PaijOaPl dlln!Pu1 sd
quawanoadwl aomaaoa ginospoioN putialod
Au.dwo3 sL1 colleoo uy
e
m
3I1N3Ad
r
rrrr.•
r
1i3A01S
•
y
d
•aupseppossdsappegw aalaiy
NOISN31X31d12131W3181SSOd ■ ■ ■
1N31A13A021dWIA1lOddd03181SSOd
J
CO
a
A3la3d
b'1
8d0ti 3118 ■iNlA1M100 MOONY
•
■
■
y
7- 3
c
ALM= CNOMI11311 My
D
✓ m M
13 m I c
r m m
7S0 x
O
D
x
x
m
m
73
Z
C
m
Z
m
A
Z
c
m
Z
m
Z
m
2
C
m
A
2
C
m
z
C
3AISd
r r r r
••
••
••
180adIV
i
1
4:7)
(7)
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
4.3 Code Model Networks. The team will code model networks to correspond to each of the
improvement scenarios developed in the previous step. For budgeting purposes, it is
assumed that a total of six alternative scenarios will be developed. Coded model networks
will be transmitted to SCAG whose staff will conduct the model runs.
Products: Conceptual corridor alignment plans on USGS topographic base.
• Coded TRANPLAN networks for each modeling scenario.
Task 5.0 Evaluate and Compare Alternative Scenarios
5.1 Run Model Scenarios. The CTP Model will be run by SCAG for each of the corridor
improvement scenarios. The results of model runs showing projected traffic volumes,
levels of congestion, average speeds, and other statistics on each facility will be
summarized and provided by SCAG to the consultants.
5.2 Analyze Mobility Results. The Consultant team will analyze the results of the. model runs
for each scenario and will summarize the results. The results will be presented in the same
format as the mobility analysis for the base (no project) conditions. Data will include
corridor volumes by facility, V/C by facility, average speeds, as well as corridor -wide
summary results of performance indicators including vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours
of travel, overall average speeds by facility type (freeway and arterials), average delay, etc.
The findings will be presented in a matrix format for comparison.
5.3 Engineering Feasibility. The conceptual alignments developed under Task 3 will be
evaluated for constructability, practicality, and cost. The findings of this evaluation will
be presented in matrix form. Opinions of probable cost will be on an order of magnitude
basis, and will include rough estimations of administration, engineering, right-of-way and
construction costs.
5.4 Identification of Environmental Issues. The consultant team will identify the potential
environmental issues associated with the developed alignment alternatives. Environmental
issues in the following areas will be examined using the CEQA checklist:
• Biological Resources —To determine the potential direct and indirect impacts of the
alternative alignments on biological resources, a qualitative evaluation will be
prepared assessing the potential impacts on connectivity of the project site to other
regional open space areas and the known presence of sensitive biological resources
within the region. Through the use of recent aerial photographs (1" to 400' scale
mapping), topographic maps, roadway alignment maps, and previous environmental
documentation of projects in theregion, the general habitat types within the study
area will be identified and limited field checks will be conducted to verify areas that
may appear suitable for sensitive biological resources. Species of potential concern
in the study area include the Delhi sands flower loving fly, Quino .checkerspot
butterfly, and San Bernardino kangaroo rats. Additionally, the compatibility of the
proposed improvements with ongoing regional open space planning for the Santa Ana
River watershed will be assessed.
• Cultural Resources —Existing data for archeological and historical sites will be used
to identify known sites and potentially allow the team to determine if any sites are
known to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Complete literature
Meyer,.Mohaddes Associates
Ou3060
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
searches and field surveys will not be conducted because this would be more
appropriate at the time when the CEQA documentation is completed.
• Land Use/Socioeconomic—Compatibility of the North/South Arterial Corridor
improvements with the existing and proposed land uses in the project study area will
be evaluated. The evaluation will identify if alternatives would result in extensive
displacements of sensitive (difficult to relocate) uses. In addition, General Plans for
the local jurisdictions and other relevant planning documents will be evaluated to
determine project consistency with the goals and policies. This would include trails,
bikeways, and other planned facilities that could potentially conflict or complement
the project.
• Air Quality —A qualitative discussion will be provided regarding potential sensitive
receptors and applicable State and federal air quality laws.
• Noise —The location of sensitive receptors will be identified.
The environmental checklist will be submitted for review to RCTC. Revisions will be
made to incorporate comments that are within the scope of work.
5.5 Rank and Compare Alternative Scenarios. Summary information from the previous three
subtasks will be presented in a matrix format for comparison purposes. These three maior
evaluation categories will include: mobility improvement, engineering feasibility, and
environmental issues. The alternative corridor improvement scenarios will be compared
and evaluated based on their performance in each of the categories and overall
performance. The alternative scenarios will be compared with the base scenario and with
each other using the evaluation criteria developed in Task 3. The alternative scenarios will
be evaluated and compared based on their performance, and ranked. The evaluation
criteria may or may not be weighted based on input from agencies.
5.6 Combine Alternatives. It is possible that after the initial evaluation of alternative
scenarios, elements from two or more scenarios may be combined to develop a separate
combination scenario.
Products:
• Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the alternatives analysis
• Summary alternatives evaluation matrix
• Environmental checklist for alternatives
• Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates
Task 6.0 Develop Recommendations
6.1 Select Preferred Alternative(s). As a result of the alternatives evaluation, the best
performing alternative scenario will be selected for recommendation. The performance
of the preferred alternative will be based on a combination.of mobility improvement,
engineering feasibility, preliminary cost, and overall environmental impacts.
6.2 Refine Conceptual Drawings and Cost Estimates. The preliminary engineering drawings
prepared for the selected alternative in Task 3 will be refined to reflect findings from the
environmental analysis and any changes which may have resulted from the evaluation of
alternative scenarios (e.g. changes in capacity and/or number of lane or typical cross
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
$uJ(36
North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC
section requirements) on particular roadway improvements. Necessary refinements will
be made to cost estimates developed in Task 3 to reflect the total cost for the preferred
alternative scenario.
6.3 Refine Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The initial study environmental checklist,
which was prepared for the alignments in the preferred alternative scenario will be
reviewed and refined, if necessary, based on any changes resulting from alternatives
analysis and possible alignment refinements.
6.4 Implementation and Funding Strategies and Public Outreach Program Outline. The
consultant team will develop a strategic implementation and funding plan for the projects
included in the selected alternative improvement scenario. A table will be developed
which will include the list of improvement projects, project description, estimated
construction cost, jurisdiction, possible funding scenario, responsible agency, potential
environmental clearances needed, and programming/funding steps. The consultant team
will develop a strategic plan outline for a potential public outreach effort with agencies
and corridor stakeholders in subsequent stages of the program, to help initiate a formal
process for the implementation of the recommended improvement projects.
6.5 Draft and Final Report. The consultant team will prepare a draft final report which will
summarize the results of all phases of the project and will be presented to all agencies for
their review. Comments will be received on the draft report, will be incorporated and a
Final Report will be published, which willinclude an Executive Summary for easy
reference.
Products:
List of Recommended Corridor Improvement Projects
• Improvement Project Strategic Implementation Plan
• Public Outreach Strategy Outline
Final Draft Report
• Final Report
Work Flow / Schedule
Our proposed schedule for the North/South Arterial Corridor Study is provided on the following page. The
graphic also illustrates the flow of work tasks, their inter -dependencies and input relationships. Major
milestones/work tasks are also indicated. We have proposed an eight month schedule for the technical
analysis. This is a schedule which will provide for a comprehensive evaluation and ample time for agency
review cycles. MMA is open to discussions on modifications to this schedule. We feel that it may be
possible to shorten the time frame to six months, if necessary, by compressing the time periods for review.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
0:) 062
E6/11/1. YMYODdEd
alnpayoS I Mold voM loa(ad
lsoi 4ndul
slonpoki 0
ApaiS A4. gsoaP
slop ioo ppapy UinoSNPoN
suogopuawwooad dolanaa 'q
sanµowew 011711on3 • g
sanuowatiy doianaa
steaN aintri3 ' £
sumpuoo 6uuspc3 • Z
uolloalloo oJoallolip111W 40,90d ' l
l
f
NOIIVZINVSd0103rOdd
uo;suyor uuy -
d31V `Apei8 uoomiem -
slsAieud smeiisuo0 •
lesuauauomnu3 •
c.1.1311104a
WIl -
lumossellll ulweu -
Buneg3 qog -
uwnl euaa -
lopuleH tie0 -
slsi(leud owed •
BuRsemod •
slsAleuy and;ewelld •
V1%1 i
0411Lit usp,osopee4
Apnls �4111 isped\
sJOppoo ElinoSnioN
'3 d 'I111-13 lee4oIW -
•3d 'uosapa ana;g -
saipn;g luawuBlid •
siuleilsuo0
Bupeoupu3 •
liupaauitiu3 al.ioa
i
•3 d 'iaAaW I8eLPIW
a`J.1111D-ul-l1:dlaul.i(1
•3 d `uelpinea ueBBIA
.131iLI aaafo.ad
imujuoA 3o Sp3
9VEINVS
CONTRACT BUDGET
Consultant. Meyer Mohaddes Associates
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Contract: North -South Arterial Co-ridors
Between 1-10 and SR-6 )
DIRECT LABOR AND FRINGE BENEFITS
Staffer
Hours Rate/nr. Amount
Principal In -Charge 12 56.18 $674
Project Manager 128 47.25 $6,048
Senior Engineer 142 36.25 $5,148
Project Engineer 140 28.85 $4,039
Technical Staff 80 18.50 $1,480
-Support Staff 16 13.50 $216
Subtotal, Direct labor
Fringe Benefits
518 S17,605
(Rate: 50 percent of direct labor) $8,802
Total, Direct Labor and Frince Benefits 926,407
SUBCONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS
Boyle Engineering $31,070
Bon Terra Consulting $9,98D
Total, Subcontractors/Consultants
OVERHEAD
Overhead on Direct Labor 92 percent of direct labor . $24,294
$41, 050
Total, Overhead $24,294
DIRECT COSTS
Traffic Counts $2.200
Travel $320
Computer $240
Printing, reproduction, phone, fax, etc. 9380
Total, Direct Costs
FIXED FEE (approx.10% of Labor & Overhead)
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
$3,140
$4,975
$99.866
00.065
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy 'Executive Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Supplement to Amendment 10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the
County of Riverside for Right -of -Way Acquisition for State Route 74
SHOPP Projects
At the August 13, 1997 Commission meeting Amendment No. 8 to our existing
Agreement (RO 9337) with the County was approved which required the County of
Riverside tp perform right-of-way acquisition services for 40 parcels for the amount
of $208,400. This action was taken to support the State funded State Highway
Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects at various locations on State
Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the City of Perris. Staff also
recommended that Amendment No.8 include a 15% contingency of $31,260 for a
total contract value of $239,660.
As Riverside County proceeded with the acquisition of the original 40 parcels,
Caltrans requested additional parcels be included in the SHOPP project acquisition
process. The total number of parcels to be acquired for the SHOPP projects has now
reached 80, double the original number proposed. Of the 80 parcels now required by
Caltrans, 70 parcels will be required by the Measure A project. The remaining 10 are
for temporary construction easements. The estimated cost for the County of Riverside
to acquire the additional 40 parcels is $195,610. This amount exceeds the original
$31,260 contingency set up to cover additional expenses under Amendment No. 8.
On May 14, 1999, the Commission approved Amendment No.10 to Agreement RO
9337 with the County of Riverside to appraise the parcels necessary for the
construction of the entire project State Route 74 between 1-15 and 7th Street in the
City of Perris. Amendment No.10 will cover the appraisal of 425 parcels and was
estimated to cost an additional $400,000.
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve $195,610 for the County of
Riverside to acquire the 40 additional SHOPP project parcels. With the addition of
this work, he total value of Amendment No. 10 would be $595,610 ($400,000 +
$195,610)• The $31,260 contingency established under Amendment No. 8 would be
retained to cover any further additional expenses should they arise.
M066
Caltrans has agreed that the overall cap on the RCTC contribution to the Caltrans
SHOPP projects will not be increased. RCTC will end up paying more for right-of-way
acquisition for parcels that will be required for the future Measure A project, and
Caltrans will pick up additional construction costs for the SHOPP projects.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$595,610 ($400,000 + $195,610)
Source of Funds
Measure A $4.1 million contribution to Caltrans SHOPP
projects
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
1997
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION..
That the Commission approve an additional $195,610 for Amendment No. 10 for the
County of Riverside to provide right-of-way acquisition services for 40 additional
SHOPP project parcels on State Route 74 between 1-15 and Th Street in the City of
Perris. The total value of Amendment No. 10 would be $595,610. The $31,260
contingency established under Amendment No. 8 would be retained to cover any
further additional expenses should they arise. A standard amendment will be used
for this action subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval.
Ouu0b'�'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SERVICES
3133 Mission Inn Avenue
Riverside, California 92507-4199
(909) 955-4800
FAX (909) 955-4828
May 12, 1999
Mike Davis, Project Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501 •
RE: Highway 74 - 101 and 301 Shopp Projects
Dear Mr. Davis:
z/h/.6-
Daniel Waldo. Jr.. P.E.
Director
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 1999
BECHTEL CORP.
Riverside Office
We have revised the figures for the Highway 74 101 and 301 Shopp projects per your request. These
figures are based on a need to acquire a total of 80 parcels, which was determined by Tom Oaltman of the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As you are aware, Amendment Number 8 covered only
40 parcels.
The estimated costs for the acquisition of these 80 parcels are as follows:
80 Parcels x 65 hours x $60/hour
Appraisal Cost (80 Parcels)
Septic System Consulting
Litigation Guarantees (80 parcels x $360)
Total Cost:
$ 312, 000.00
64,210.00
21,900.00
28,800.00
$ 426, 910.00
The above estimate does not include costs for land purchases or title policies and escrow fees which are
based upon a percentage of the land costs. Further, the estimate does not include additional expenses for
acquisition services for protracted negotiations resulting from any condemnation actions or costs for any
relocation assistance which may be needed for this project.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 909 955-9275.
truly yours,
i/cd
anet M. Parks
Supervising Real Property Agent
JMP:js
cc: Bill Hughes
Dan Waldo
Dave Slaughter
003063
ARCHITECTURE -ENGINEERING DIVISION
(909) 955.4810
FAX (909) 955-4890
CUSTODIAL DIVISION
(909) 955-4839
FAX (909) 955-4828
MAINTENANCE DIVISION
(909) 955-4830
FAX (909) 955-4828
REAL PROPERTY DIVISION
(909) 955.4820
FAX (909) 9554837
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans & Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the
Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive
Projects as parts of its Commuter Assistance Program"
The first resolution establishing guidelines for the administration of the commuter
incentive projects under the Commission's Measure A funded Commuter Assistance
Program was approved in April, 1993 for FY 92/93. Based on Legal Counsel's
recommendation, the resolution was prepared to minimize liability and formalize
project requirements which had evolved since the inception of the various commuter
incentive projects.
Each fiscal year, staff reviews the existing Resolution (No. 98-006) to determine its
consistency with any proposed programmatic amendments to the commuter incentive
projects: Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride. Resolution No. 99-005, attached as
- Exhibit A, was prepared jointly by staff and Legal Counsel. Proposed changes are
marked for easy reference. They reflect minor editorial and clarification changes as
no substantive programmatic amendments are being proposed for FY 99/00.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
N/A
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N/A
N/A
Year
Included in Program Budget
N/A
Year Programed
Approved Allocation
N/A
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
N/A
Financial Impact Not Applicable
N/A
00306�j
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the
Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter Assistance
Program."
Attachment
0ti0
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. J8-OOG 99-005
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
MEASURE "A" FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS
AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in 1988 Riverside County residents approved Measure "A"
imposing a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation purposes within the County of
Riverside; and
WHEREAS, 21/2% of the revenues generated under Measure "A" are
designated for commuter assistance efforts designed to encourage single occupant
vehicle drivers to carpool, vanpool, buspool, walk, bicycle, telecommute or use
public transit (bus/train) to and from work to reduce congestion during peak rush
hour periods; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has established a Commuter Assistance Program
including two commuter incentive projects, Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride, for
the purpose of carrying out the.mandates of the Measure A; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes now to revise the guidelines established
in Resolution No. 98-006 and adopt amended ,guidelines for the two commuter
incentive projects to help induce ridesharing in the County and to provide a means
for fairly allocating limited Measure A revenues to all eligible participants;
000011
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The following guidelines are hereby established for
Advantage Rideshare:
(a) A Participating Commuter must be engaged in a Rideshare Arrangement
for the purpose of commuting to a place of employment or a
telecommuting work center. A Rideshare Arrangement specifically
excludes taking children to school and/or day care situations.
(b) Subject to the limitations set forth elsewhere in this Resolution, the
following incentives are hereby established for Advantage Rideshare:
(1) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in
a new Carpool.
(2) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in
an existing Carpool.
(3) up'to`$2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides in a
new Vanpool. In addition, the Commission shall may purchase
half the empty seats, if the employer and/or other riders
purchase the remaining half.
(4) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides in an
existing Vanpool.
(5) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides a
public bus.
00072
(6) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter walks or
bicycles.
(7) UP to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter
telecommutes.
(8) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides Ibhetrcrrrtk-
commuter rail.
(c) All Participating Commuters must live in Western Riverside County.
(d) All Participating Commuters in Advantage Rideshare must be employed
by a Participating Employer during participation in Advantage Rideshare.
(e) A Participating Commuter may not have received, within the six months
prior to enrollment in Advantage Rideshare, any Incentive from
Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister Agency Program. If an applicant
received an Incentive from Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister
Agency Program more than six months before submitting an application,
the applicant may receive an Incentive under Advantage Rideshare only
if he or she requests an Incentive for a different Commute Mode from
that for which he or she has already received an Incentive.
(f) The Participating Commuter may not have been in a Rideshare
Arrangement during the 90 days prior to enrollment in Advantage
Rideshare.
000073
(g) A participating Commuter must commute to work between 4:00 a.m.
and 10:00 a.m. on one or more weekdays (i.e., Monday through Friday)
to qualify.
(h) A Participating Commuter must carpool, vanpool, use public bus or
commuter rail, walk, bicycle or telecommute to work a minimum of five
weekdays a month to qualify.
(i) Participating Commuters may receive an Incentive under Advantage
Rideshare for no more than three (3) consecutive months. Any calendar
month during which a Participating Commuter is enrolled in Advantage
Rideshare shall be considered a full month of participation in Advantage
Rideshare. For example, if a Participating Commuter enrolls in Advantage
Rideshare on the 15`h of a month and carpools for five days in that
month, that month will be considered a full month for purpose of
determining the Participating Commuter's participation in Advantage
Rideshare.
(j) If a Participating Commuter's employer offers an incentive for ridesharing,
the Incentive provided under Advantage Rideshare shall be reduced to the
extent that the two incentives exceed $3.00.
(k) All Incentives, except Incentive for vanpooling and commuter rail, ;shall
be provided in the form of gift certificates purchased from private
businesses by the Commission for this use. The Incentive for vanpooling
may either be paid in:
0u 07,i
(1) cash to the Participating Commuter's employer or to the Vanpool
leasing company, or
(2) gift certificates to the Participating Commuter.
The incentive for commuter rail shall be provided in the form of TrainBucks.
In no event shall cash be provided directly to a Participating Commuter.
Section 2. The following guidelines are hereby established for Club Ride:
(a) Any Western Riverside County resident currently participating in
a Rideshare Arrangement may participate in Club Ride, provided
that he or she has participated in a Rideshare Arrangement for
a minimum of one day per week for a period of at least six
months for the purpose of commuting to and from a place of
employment or telecommuting work center.
(b) The Executive Director is authorized to provide promotional
materials to all Club Ride participants.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this resolution, the following phrases shall
have the following meanings:
(a) "Carpool" shall mean two or more persons commuting on a daily
regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a
seating arrangement designed to seat less than seven adults,
including the driver.
(b) "Club Ride" means the Incentive described in Section 2 of this
resolution.
(c) "Commuter Incentive Program" refers collectively to Advantage Rideshare
and Club Ride.
(d) "Incentive" means gift certificates or TarainB'ucks to a Participating
Commuter, or a cash payment to a Participating Employer or a
vanpool leasing company provided under this resolution for the
purpose of inducing eligible commuters to join Rideshare
Arrangements or otherwise participate in the Commuter Incentive
Program or other comparable project.
(e) "Participating Commuter" means a commuter currently
participating in the Commuter Incentive Program.
(f) "Participating Employer" shall mean any employer which has
executed an agreement with the Commission for participation in
the Commuter Incentive Program.
(g) "Rideshare Arrangement" shall mean the transportation of two or
more working adults in a motor vehicle or by rail where that
transportation is incidental to another purpose of the driver. The
term includes ridesharing arrangements known as carpools, vanpools
and buspools as well as utilizing public bus and commuter rail
services. In addition, persons walking, bicycling or telecommuting
shall also be deemed to be participants in a Rideshare Arrangement.
"Buspool" means sixteen or more persons commuting on a daily
regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a seating
4u00 76
arrangement designed to carry more than fifteen adult passengers.
(h) "Vanpool" means seven or more persons commuting on a daily
regularbasis to and from work by means of a vehicle with seating
arrangements designed to carry seven to fifteen adults, including the
driver.
(i) "Western Riverside County" shall have the same meaning as in the
Measure "A" Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in November
1988.
Section 4. Resolution No. 98-006 is hereby superseded and repealed.
Section 5. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to
take those steps necessary and proper to implement the Commuter Incentive Program.
The Executive Director, may, in his discretion, establish additional rules and regulations
for the Commuter Incentive Program as well as prescribe in writing qualification
requirements and incentives for the Commuter Incentive Program which differ from
those established here.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 1999.
Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
003077
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO: .
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans & Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Tanya Love, Program Manager •
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
San Bernardino Associated Governments FY
Assistance Program Contract
99/00
Commuter
For the past six years, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has
contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a commuter
incentive project for San Bernardino County commuters. The project, known as
Option Rideshare was developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's
Measure A commuter incentive project, Advantage Rideshare.
Additionally, SANBAG and the Commission jointly established Inland Empire
Commuter Services in FY 95/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the
Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer
rideshare services as opposed to contracting with Southern California Rideshare, a
division of Southern California Association of Governments.
- Together, Option Rideshare and . Inland Empire Commuter Services make-up
SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program. Based on SANBAG staff's review of the
two projects' performance this current fiscal year, the Commission was asked to
develop and submit a FY 99/00 work plan and budget. for continuation of their
Commuter Assistance Program. The proposed budget, attached as Exhibit A, was
prepared by RCTC and SANBAG staff.
Attached as Exhibit B are the goals for the two projects. The proposed contract
between SANBAG and the Commission which defines the terms and conditions
regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services
rendered has been reviewed and approved by RCTC's legal counsel and was
approved by the SANBAG Board at its May, 1999, meeting. Staff seeks Commission
approval to enter into the contract with SANBAG as part of the Commission's
continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG in the delivery of coordinated
commuter and employer rideshare services.
003078
As the SANBAG contract budget is not part of the Commission's proposed budget,
staff seeks approval to incorporate the costs in the Commission's contract with its
Transportation Demand Management agreement in an amount not to exceed
$677,831.00.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$677,831
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
SANBAG's Measure 1; STP and LTF Funds
N/A
Year
Included in Program Budget
N/A
Year Programed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue
implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for
FY 99/00; 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission; and 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance
Program consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant to perform the work.
130007
5/10/99
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
FY 99/00
LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION
INLAND
EMPIRE
COMMUTER
SERVICES
OPTION
RIDESHARE IN
COUNTY
OPTION
RIDESHARE
OUT OF
COUNTY
MULTI-SITE/MULTI
JURISDICTIONAL
SPECIAL
PROJECTS
Consulting
Labor
$201,954.00
$105,753.00
$117,885.00
$12,546.00
$6,931.00
Consulting Expenses
l
$3,725.00
$2,500.00
$3,250.00
$250.00
$69.00
Marketing Materials/Incentives
$33,000.00
$13,850.00
$13,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
Office Equipment
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
Office Supplies
f
$1,300.00
$1,300.00
$1,300.00
• $0.00
$0.00
Photocopy
Service
$100.00
$50.00
$50.00
$0.00
$0.00
Postage
$5,000.00
$2,750.00
$2,250.00
$0.00
$0.00
Certificates/Vouchers/Subsidies
$2,025.00
$68,343.00
$35,600.00
$0.00
$0.00
Promotional
Events
$1,800.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
$0.00
$0.00
Telephone
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
Office Services
$550.00
$450.00
$450.00
$0.00
$0.00
Equipment
Maintenance
$400.00
$400.00
$400.00
• $0.00
$0.00
Mailing Services
$250.00
$100.00
$100.00
$0.00
$0.00
Computer
Support/Maintenance
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
Program Development/Oversigh
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$261,604.00
$208,396.00
$188,035.00
• $12,796.00
$7,000.00
a:excel, a/rctcoo.xls
Pay
J
_;70
O
Attachment B
San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs
Fiscal Year 1999-00
Inland Empire Commuter Services
Provide a variety of services to employers who participate in trip reduction activities, including
network meetings. technical assistance, promotions, coordination of average vehicle ridership
surveys and RideGuide dissemination, Rideshare Connection broadcast facsimiles and
coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi -site and multi -
jurisdictional headquarters within the County as well as related worksites outside of the County.
The services also include special project assistance from RCTC to SANBAG, such as park and
ride lots assistance, as well as SB 836 projects.
Related Expenses:
Include consulting labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, and
telephone.
Goals:
• Provide dissemination of 22,573 RideGuide to employer sites.
• Coordinate production of 43,934 surveys to 259 employers in San Bernardino County.
Assist six multi-site/multi-jurisdictional headquarters with 123 work sites within the region.
• Provide technical assistance and survey/RideGuide services to assist employers in preparing
and implementing trip reduction programs.
• Sponsor four employer transportation network meetings.
Develop and implement two employer rideshare marketing campaigns.
• Broadcast 18 Rideshare Connection facsimiles to San Bemardino County employers.
• Implement the 5`h Annual SANBAG Employer Partnership Awards Program.
Option Rideshare
Offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to employment sites within our outside
the County, up to $2 a day (in local merchant gift certificates) for each day they participate in a
rideshare mode, during a three-month period.
Related Expenses:
Consulting labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, telephone, and
direct commuter incentives in certificates/vouchers/ subsidies.
0:1A00007.doc
000081
Goals:
• Solicit 644 County residents, who commute within the County to their worksite, to try a
rideshare mode for three months. These efforts will reduce 55.304 one-way vehicle trips.
• Solicit 416 County residents, who commute outside of the County to their worksite, to try a
rideshare mode for three months. These efforts will reduce 27,605 one-way vehicle trips.
Summary of Revenues and Expenses
Revenue and Expense Summary by Category
STP Funds
$ 535,421.00
Labor
$ 445,687.00
Measure I Funds
$ 124,937.00
Incentives
$ 110,550.00
LTF
$ 17,473.00
Marketing
$ 60.700.00
Total Program Funding
$ 677,831.00
Computer/Equipment
$ 10,500.00
Postage
$ 10,000.00
Operational Expenses
$ 40,394.00
Total Expense
$ 677,831.00
Summary of Revenue by Program Category
Program Category ,, ;:!-
tSTP, . ::-°:
'Measure'l "r "
��, =
t :: 0'
Inland Empire Commuter Services
$261,377.00
$525.00
$17,473.00
S279,375.00
Option Rideshare
$274.044.00
$124,412.00
0
$398,456.00
Total
S535,421.00
S124,937.00
S17,473.00
S677,831.00
Summary of Revenue by SANBAG Task Number
Task
Number
- �� �.�
' -Program Cs o
g � rY��.�.��
�,_"
STP
. Measure.I *
�,^�L+��
'
,
40612
Inland Empire Commuter Services
$243,106.00
$16,473.00
$259,579.00
40621
Option Rideshare — In County
$274,044.00
$18,462.00
S292,506.00
40622
Option Rideshare - Out of County
$105,950.00
•
S105,950.00
40613
Multi-Site/Multi-Jurisdictional
$11,796.00
$1,000.00
$12,796.00
40607
Special Projects
$6,475.00
$525100
$7,000.00
Total
S535,421.00
S124,937.00
S17,473.00
S677,831.00
O:\A00007.doc
063082
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 2, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans & Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY 99/00 Southern California Rideshare Agreement for Regional
Rideshare Core Services
Southern California Rideshare (SCR), formerly known as Commuter Transportation
Services, Inc. (CTS), has provided regional rideshare services for over 20 years in the
southern California region including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino
and Ventura Counties. For many years, stable funding was secured from Caltrans at
the state level with additional contributions from each of the respective county
transportation commissions (CTC's). As the Commission will recall, for the last
several years state funding was continually in question requiring extensive lobbying
efforts at various levels to secure the following years allocation.
In FY 97/98, Caltrans authorized the use of Transportation System Management
(TSM) fund savings for regional rideshare services as the "last" bridge funding with
the expectation that local jurisdictions would assume all future funding
responsibilities. Based on the adopted roles and responsibilities between the Regional
Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) and SCR, a regional rideshare core services
work program was prepared in cooperation with SCR and approved by the RTAC.
In FY 98/99 funding was provided by the local CTCs based on a population formula;
Riverside County's proportional share is 8.05% or $253,141 .00.. Included in RCTC's
FY 99/00 draft budget under the Commuter Assistance Program is a Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) line item allocation to SCR in the amount requested.
The regional rideshare core services work program includes database maintenance,
survey and RideGuide production, telephorie customer information service and
marketing implementation. As in the previous year, the five CTC's have taken a
collaborative approach in the development of the work program, and expect to
oversee the performance of SCR through the collective RTAC process. Attached as
Exhibit A is the proposed goals and objectives identified in the work plan. The
proposed contract between RCTC and the Southern California Association of
Governments is currently being reviewed by RCTC's legal counsel. This contract
defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing
and payment for services rendered.
000083
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$253,141
Source of Funds
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality included in proposed FY
99/00 RCTC budget.
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) approve the Southern California Rideshare FY99/00
Riverside Regional Rideshare Services Work Program, 2) authorize the expenditure of
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141
pursuant to adoption of RCTC's FY99/00 budget, and 3) pursuant to legal counsel
review and approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with
SCR.
0 U 0'8 (i
standardized methodology developed by Cal State Chico and based on the most recent regional
placement evaluation conducted in 1995. Placement statistics are subject to change based on
outcome of FY `99-00 placement evaluation.) The number of AVR reports to be generated is
continent upon level of response to voluntary activities. (on -going)
Start Date: 07/01/99
End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 25%
Task 4: RideGuide fulfillment and distribution. Maintain and update tracking system to ensure
efficiency in delivery of RideGuides to clients. Perform quality assurance checks.
Product: 220,000 RideGuides with up-to-date rideshare or commute information to be fulfilled and
mailed to 1,000 clients for distribution to employees. (on -going)
Start Date: 07/01 /99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 204)/o
This product is consultant -assisted.
Task 5: Maintain rideshare computer software which:
• Produces survey registration packets for clients, including AVR/Transportation Survey forms
(consistent with different air quality district's needs) and Instruction Packets.
• Schedules production of RideGuides, produces RideGuides, records production statistics, and
reports productions statistics.
• Provides an Internet interface to commuter registration and matching.
• Produces statistics reports for employers and density maps of employer registrants.
Develop computer software which:
• Provides the capability to e-mail RideGuides to individuals registered through Teleservices.
Products (on -going):
• Survey Registration Packets, including AVR/Transportation Survey forms and Instruction
Packets.
• 220,000 RideGuides to employees at client work sites. (By county: 152,096 in Los Angeles,
28,850 in Orange, 13,431 in Riverside, 22,573 in San Bernardino, and 3,050 in Ventura)
• Internal Production Statistics Reports.
• Computer screens to schedule production and selectively report.
• Internet access to carpool, vanpool, park and ride lot, and transit information.
• Employer rideshare reports, including AVR Reports.
• Employer data on CD ROM for density map displays and identification of carpool alternatives
for new potential ridesharers.
• RideGuides available via e-mail.
Qu0086
Exhibit A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
REGIONAL CORE RIDESHARE SERVICES
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
Survey and RideGuide Production S1,155,314
Generate survey packets which include AVR/Transportation forms and RideGuide processing
instructions for employer registration. Track, disseminate, and maintain records on client
registration activity. Prepare raw data for transcription, perform data entry, and validate accuracy
of information by performing quality assurance checks. Produce RideGuides and average vehicle
ridership (AVR) reports. Fulfill and mail RideGuides to clients for distribution of
employees/commuters. Maintain software to.adapt to changes in RideGuide and AVR processes.
Expense categories include labor, data entry, RideGuide fulfillment, paper, envelopes, postage,
CD ROMs, disks and other electronic media.
Tasks/Products:
Task 1: Generate and disseminate survey packets for employer rideshare registration. Track and
monitor survey activity for individual sites to ensure timeliness in production and delivery.
Develop and maintain plans, schedules, and status pertinent to registration processing.
Product: 1,000 automated survey packets for distribution to client sites. (on -going)
Start Date: 07/01 /99
End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 15%
Task 2: Forms preparation, data entry, geo-correction, and quality control. Processes include:
(a) review and batch forms for data entry, (b) data transcription, (c) registrant database error
correction, and (d) general rideshare data validation.
Product: Processed data prior to RideGuide production and Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR)
calculation. (on -going)
Start Date: 07/01/99
End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 25%
Task 3: Production of RideGuides and AVR reports. Develop and maintain plans, schedules,
and status pertinent to RideGuide and AVR processing.
Products: 220,000 RideGuides from employer outreach program, placing approximately 33,000
(15%) commuters into a rideshare mode. (Estimation of placements is derived from a
ou30a5
Start Date: 07/01/99
End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 5%
Task 6: Perform Y2K testing of the Survey and RideGuide production software.
Product: Rideshare software which provides seamless Survey and RideGuide production
processes after 01/01/00. (one-time)
Start Date: 07/01/00
End Date: 12/01/99 Percent: 5%
Task 7: Convert the Survey and RideGuide production software to run on the DEC Alpha
computer system, replacing the DEC VAX computer system.
Product: Survey and RideGuide production processing on the DEC Alpha computer system.
(option)
Start Date: 07/01/00 End Date: 12/01/99 Percent: 5%
Goals:
• Schedule and track 1,000 employer survey packets.
• Generate 220,000 RideGuides from employer requests, placing approximately 15% of
these or 33,000 commuters into a rideshare arrangement.
• Generate 5,000 RideGuides from remote terminals (ROLA).
• Maintain a ten day (business work days) RideGuide turnaround time (defined as from
the time the surveys are received at SCAG to the time they are mailed from the
fulfillment contractor).
Database Management and Ouality Assurance $1,056,467
Maintain a quality database of rideshare information, secure from tampering yet accessible to
user's needs, with timely and accurate software. Maintain computer programs which create,
update, report, and delete commuter, vanpool, park and ride lot, client and work site, employer'
and regional incentives, and other rideshare data.
Task 1: Maintain existing rideshare software to create, update, report, and delete commuter,
vanpool, park and ride lot, client and work site, employer and regional incentives, and other
rideshare data, accommodating changes required to meet changing goals, rules, performance
needs, etc. and augment security and data access controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality
of information.
Products (on -going):
000087
" C o m p u t e r s c r e e n s w h i c h m a i n t a i n r i d e s h a r e d a t a .
" C o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e t o s e l e c t , s u m m a r i z e , a n d r e p o r t o n r e t a i n e d d a t a t o s u p p o r t u s e r s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f d a t a .
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9
E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 1 0 %
T a s k 2 : M a i n t a i n t h e a d d r e s s g e o - c o d i n g d a t a b a s e f o r t r a n s l a t i o n o f s t r e e t a d d r e s s e s a n d
i n t e r s e c t i o n s i n t o g e o g r a p h i c r e f e r e n c e s f o r r i d e m a t c h i n g , m a p p i n g , a n d o t h e r g e o g r a p h i c
r e f e r e n t i a l p r o d u c t s .
P r o d u c t s : G e o - c o d i n g d a t a b a s e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c u r r e n t d i g i t a l m a p . ( o n - g o i n g )
S t a r t D a t e : 0 4 / 0 1 / 0 0 E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 5 %
T a s k 3 : C o n v e r t t h e R i d e S t a r d a t a m a i n t e n a n c e s o f t w a r e t o t h e W i n d o w s g r a p h i c a l u s e r
i n t e r f a c e , e l i m i n a t i n g n o l o n g e r u s e d f u n c t i o n s a c c u m u l a t e d f r o m p r i o r y e a r s . C o n v e r t t h e s e r v e r
s o f t w a r e t o r u n o n t h e D E C A l p h a c o m p u t e r s y s t e m .
P r o d u c t s ( o n g o i n g ) :
" C o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e w h i c h m a i n t a i n s r i d e s h a r e d a t a , r u n n i n g o n t h e D E C A l p h a c o m p u t e r
s y s t e m .
" C o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e t o s e l e c t , s u m m a r i z e , a n d r e p o r t o n r e t a i n e d d a t a t o s u p p o r t u s e r s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f d a t a .
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9 E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 2 5 %
T h i s p r o d u c t i s c o n s u l t a n t - a s s i s t e d .
T a s k 4 : D e v e l o p c o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e t o a c c u r a t e l y a n d c o n c i s e l y t r a c k r i d e s h a r e a c t i v i t i e s a n d
s e r v i c e s f o r r e p o r t i n g t o f u n d e r s .
P r o d u c t : C o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e t o r e c o r d , s e l e c t , s u m m a r i z e , a n d r e p o r t o n r e t a i n e d d a t a
p e r t a i n i n g t o a c t i v i t i e s a n d s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d . ( o n - g o i n g )
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9
E n d D a t e : 1 2 / 3 1 / 9 9 P e r c e n t : 1 0 %
T a s k 5 : P e r f o r m Y 2 K t e s t i n g o f t h e D a t a b a s e M a i n t e n a n c e s o f t w a r e .
P r o d u c t : R i d e s h a r e s o f t w a r e w h i c h p r o v i d e s s e a m l e s s d a t a m a i n t e n a n c e p r o c e s s e s a f t e r
0 1 / 0 1 / 0 0 . ( o n e - t i m e )
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9
O V 0 v 8
E n d D a t e : 1 2 / 0 1 / 9 9 P e r c e n t : 5 %
P a g e 1 4 o f 2 1
Task 6: Maintain a quality vanpool database of 1,500 existing vanpools by reviewing age of data
reports and contacting clients to verify the accuracy of their van data and to obtain updated
vanpool information for changed routes as well as newly established vanpools. Data changes will
be made in a timely manner and vanpool output will be verified for accuracy.
Products (on -going):
• Updated vanpool data on RideGuides.
• Accurate vanpool matchlists.
Start Date: 07/01/99
End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 1 5 %
Task 7: Tasks associated with overall data base maintenance and quality assurance for 702
routes within the SCAG region to ensure accuracy in data and placement on RideGuides as well
as transit itineraries generated by Transtar users through Web site access.
Tasks include:
• Generate annual fare reports to verify accuracy of carrier fares as well as zoned fares for
individual routes.
• Maintain on -going relationship with transit providers in an effort to acquire published
schedules and route books as well as route change information prior to effective dates.
• Conduct systematic samplings of client RideGuides to check accuracy of transit information
displayed.
In addition, quality assurance activities include tasks associated with maintaining and quality
testing 126 routes outside of Los Angeles County as well as 111 routes updated and put into
production by VCTC, OmniTrans, and RTA.•
Tasks include:
• Contact transit providers to obtain stops and time schedules for planned updates before
changes go into effect.
• Update routes in Transtar database to accurately reflect changes in schedules and route
patterns.
• Generate internal Route Errors Report to identify errors in times and/or stops.
• Generate approximately 15-25 itineraries per route to verify whether footnotes, alternate
patterns, fares, and schedules are accurate.
• Verify that the route is checked and put into production by an individual other than the person
who updated the route.
• Provide technical support to transit providers updating their local route data.
Products (on going):
d0308J
" U p d a t e d t r a n s i t d a t a o n R i d e G u i d e s .
" A c c u r a t e r o u t e d a t a p r o v i d e d o n t r a n s i t i t i n e r a r i e s p r o v i d e d b y c a l l c e n t e r s .
" A c c u r a t e r o u t e d a t a p r o v i d e d o n t r a n s i t i t i n e r a r i e s r e q u e s t e d v i a S C A G w e b p a g e .
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 i / 9 9
E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 2 0 %
T a s k 8 : P r o v i d e t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t a n d t r a i n i n g t o T r a n S t a r a n d R i d e S t a r u s e r s c a l l i n g i n o n t h e
H o t l i n e . A s s i s t t r a n s i t p r o v i d e r s e n t e r i n g t h e i r o w n t r a n s i t d a t a w i t h t e l e p h o n e s u p p o r t d u r i n g
t h e i r r o u t e e n t r y p r o c e s s . A s s i s t w i t h t e s t i n g r o u t e d a t a t o e n s u r e a c c u r a c y o f f o o t n o t e s a n d f a r e s
a s w e l l a s l a n d m a r k d e f i n i t i o n s . P r o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t r o u b l e s h o o t i n g p r o b l e m s r e l a t e d t o
f u n c t i o n a l i t y o f s o f t w a r e .
P r o d u c t s ( o n - g o i n g ) :
" U s e r t r a i n i n g c l a s s e s .
" A c c u r a t e r o u t e d a t a f o r c a l l c e n t e r u s e a s w e l l a s f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f i t i n e r a r i e s a n d R i d e G u i d e s .
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9
E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 5 %
T a s k 9 : M a i n t a i n u p d a t e d p a r k a n d r i d e l o t d a t a b a s e b y m a i n t a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e n t i t i e s
p r o v i d i n g / m a i n t a i n i n g p a r k a n d r i d e l o t s . D e l e t e p a r k a n d r i d e l o t s n o l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e b y
c a r p o o l e r s f r o m t h e d a t a b a s e . A d d n e w l o t s a s t h e y a r e i d e n t i f i e d .
P r o d u c t s : A c c u r a t e p a r k a n d r i d e l o t i n f o r m a t i o n o n R i d e G u i d e s ( o n - g o i n g ) .
S t a r t D a t e : 0 7 / 0 1 / 9 9
G o a l s :
E n d D a t e : 0 6 / 3 0 / 0 0 P e r c e n t : 5 %
"
" M a i n t a i n a n a c c u r a t e d a t a b a s e o f 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 r e g i s t r a n t s .
" M a i n t a i n w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h 5 0 v a n p o o l c l i e n t s i n o r d e r t o r e t a i n c u r r e n t
i n f o r m a t i o n o n 1 , 5 0 0 e x i s t i n g v a n s w i t h i n S C A G '